Edson v. Central Railroad
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Marshall Circuit Court. AotioN before a justice of tbe peace for the alleged negligently killing of a cow by defendant on the line of its road. On appeal the cause came before the Circuit Court, where it was tried by a jury, and a verdict was returned, and a judgment rendered for plaintiff for $41.68, and costs. . Defendant appeals. The material facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.
i. negligence: wliat is competent to prove. I. The action of the court, in admitting evidence of the high rate of speed of the train, and that the bell was not rung nor the whistle blown, is assigned as error, . 0 . . B A mere high rate of speed is not per se negligence. Neither is the failure to ring a bell or blow a whistle. We have no statute regulating speed, nor requiring that a bell shall be rung or a whistle blown. Whilst the running at a high rate of speed, without ringing a bell or blowing a whistle, would not, as a matter of law, constitute negligence, yet such *48acts furnish very…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Kansas City v. KirkseySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
- Testerman v. HinesWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1921
- Buster v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1885