34 P. 286 (Colo. 1893), Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Crisman
|Citation:||34 P. 286, 19 Colo. 30|
|Opinion Judge:||GODDARD, J.|
|Party Name:||CHICAGO, R.I. & P. R. CO. v. CRISMAN.|
|Attorney:||[19 Colo. 31] William Harrison, A. E. Pattison, and Thomas H. Edsall, for plaintiff in error. Browne & Putnam, for defendant in error.|
|Case Date:||October 02, 1893|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Colorado|
Error to district court, Arapahoe county.
Action by Albert Crisman against the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
This suit was brought to recover damages for the destruction of plaintiff's wagon and the killing of his horses by being struck by an engine of a passenger train belonging to plaintiff in error while coming east on the Kansas Pacific Railroad at a point at or about the intersection of Market and Forty-Fourth streets, in Denver. A judgment was recovered in the district court of Arapahoe county for the value of the team and wagon.
It appears from the record that at the point of collision there were four tracks. The one furthest from the city is designated 'the transfer track.' This departs from the main track at a point about 750 feet easterly from the crossing, and crosses the highway at a point 367 feet from where the accident occurred. The second track is a siding, which crosses the highway at a distance of 40 feet from the main track The third track is also a siding, crossing the highway about 15 feet from the main track. At the time of the accident cars were standing on either side of the highway upon all of these tracks except the main track, and so obstructed the view of the main track
that it was difficult for a person driving on the highway to see a train approaching from the east after the transfer track had been passed, and while between the transfer track and the main track. The wagon destroyed was a covered milk wagon, loaded with milk cans. On either side of the wagon there were sliding doors, with a window in front, which hung upon hinges, and could be opened and hooked up at the top of the cover. The doors and window were open at the time of the accident. One Nuney, the servant of defendant in error, who was driving the team at the time of the accident, had been driving over the road for four days previous to the accident, and had passed over the railroad crossing at least once each day during that time, at about the same hour the accident occurred. There is a serious conflict in the evidence as to whether the whistle was blown before, or the bell was being sounded at, the time of the accident; also...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP