105 N.W. 1101 (Neb. 1905), 14,005, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company v. Schwanenfeldt

Docket Nº:14,005
Citation:105 N.W. 1101, 75 Neb. 80
Opinion Judge:JACKSON, C.
Party Name:CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILWAY COMPANY v. EMIL SCHWANENFELDT
Attorney:J. W. Deweese and Frank E. Bishop, for plaintiff in error. A. W. Field, contra.
Judge Panel:JACKSON, C. DUFFIE and ALBERT, CC., concur. DUFFIE and ALBERT, CC., concur.
Case Date:November 22, 1905
Court:Supreme Court of Nebraska
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 1101

105 N.W. 1101 (Neb. 1905)

75 Neb. 80

CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY RAILWAY COMPANY

v.

EMIL SCHWANENFELDT

No. 14,005

Supreme Court of Nebraska

November 22, 1905

ERROR to the district court for Lancaster county: ALBERT J. CORNISH, JUDGE. Reversed.

REVERSED.

J. W. Deweese and Frank E. Bishop, for plaintiff in error.

A. W. Field, contra.

JACKSON, C. DUFFIE and ALBERT, CC., concur.

OPINION

[75 Neb. 81] JACKSON, C.

The plaintiff in the trial court recovered judgment against the defendant in an action for damages on account of a personal injury, which it was alleged he sustained because of the negligent acts of the defendant. At the close of the plaintiff's evidence the defendant moved for a directed verdict. The motion was denied and the defendant offered no evidence. From the judgment the defendant prosecutes error, alleging insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and judgment.

The facts disclosed by the evidence are: That the defendant owned and used a railway track along Eighth street in the city of Lincoln, a street extending from the south to the north along the east side of block 52. The track in question was a switch put in for the accommodation of wholesale houses, and was connected with the company's yards at the south end only, so that the only means of access to the track was from the south. At the point where the accident occurred the west rail of the railway track was 17 feet east of the lot line. An alley 16 feet in width extends east and west through block 52, and is paved with stone. On the east side of the block, and immediately south of the alley, a lumber yard, inclosed with a high board fence, with an office building at the east end of the lot, obstructs the view, so that it [75 Neb. 82] would be impossible for a person passing through the alley from the west to the east to see a train approaching from the south, except at a point at or near the east end of the alley where it intersects Eighth street. Between the buildings on the east side of block 52 and the railway track there is nothing to obstruct the view to the south, except some telegraph poles. The plaintiff was the driver of a butcher's delivery wagon, drawn by a single horse. The seat on the wagon was at the front, flush with the end of the box, so that the driver occupying the seat would sit with his feet resting on the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP