Stafford v. Chippewa Val. Elec. R. Co.

Citation110 Wis. 331,85 N.W. 1036
PartiesSTAFFORD v. CHIPPEWA VAL. ELECTRIC R. CO.
Decision Date30 April 1901
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from circuit court, Eau Claire county.

Action by Jessie Stafford against the Chippewa Valley Electric Railroad Company for injuries received in a crossing accident. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Action to recover compensation for personal injuries caused under circumstances alleged in the complaint in effect as follows: About 9:30 o'clock p. m., August 27,1899, while plaintiff and her husband, accompanied by several other persons, in a lumber wagon drawn by two horses, were traveling south on North Farwell street at the crossing thereof with Wisconsin street, a point much used for public travel, said Wisconsin street having a street-railway track in operation thereon by defendant under a franchise limiting the speed of its cars to 10 miles per hour, and requiring a bell to be continuously rung on every car while in motion upon a street,--and while they were in the exercise of ordinary care in the act of passing over the street-car track, one of its cars approached such point from the east at a speed of 25 miles per hour without any bell being sounded and without the motorman paying any attention to their presence, although their situation of peril was in plain view of such motorman, whereby such car collided with their wagon and overturned it, causing severe bodily injuries to plaintiff, which were described in general language. It was further alleged in effect that the track was laid on a downgrade from the east, to the point where the collision occurred, for a distance of several hundred feet; that it was obscured from view from Farwell street, upon which plaintiff was traveling, by a high billboard on the north side of Wisconsin street; that at a point 34 feet north of the north rail of the track, a car located thereon at any point to the east could be seen for a distance of about 375 feet; that plaintiff and her associates looked that way for a car while at such point and not seeing any proceeded slowly, turning their attention to the west to see if a car was approaching from that direction; that they again looked east as the horses were on the north rail of the track, when they saw a car approaching, so close to them that it seemed that the only way to save themselves, if any existed, was to complete the crossing; that they endeavored to do so, but before they got clear of the track the collision and injury occurred.

The answer admitted the collision and injury. It put in issue the allegations of negligence as regards defendant's motorman in handling the car, and pleaded contributory negligence of plaintiff as a defense.

The evidence established beyond controversy the following facts: The night was dark but still, and there was nothing to interfere with hearing or seeing an approaching car while it was a sufficient distance from the Farwell street crossing to enable a traveler upon such street to avoid being injured by it by the exercise of reasonable diligence to that end. Farwell street was a north and south street, and Wisconsin street an east and west thoroughfare, the two crossing each other at right angles at the place of the accident. The street-car track was on Wisconsin street. The north side of the street was about 30 feet from the north rail of the track. For several hundred feet of the approach of the street-car track to the crossing, from the east, it was on a downgrade towards the crossing. Wisconsin street was lighted by electric lights, but Farwell street, in the vicinity of the crossing, was not lighted. The street car that collided with the wagon in which plaintiff was riding was an open car. It was lighted with a number of electric lights and was furnished with a headlight which was burning brightly at the time of the accident. The approaching car could have been plainly seen, by any one standing within the territory that was common to the two streets, while anywhere within a distance of 800 feet on Wisconsin street from the place of collision. It was seen by many witnesses, several of whom testified for plaintiff, including all who so testified on the subject. The car was but a short distance from the place of collision when the team was within a few feet of the north rail of the track. The evidence was conflicting as to the speed of the horses, but on plaintiff's side it showed that they were going about three miles per hour. The evidence was also conflicting as to the speed of the car, witnesses placing it from 4 to 25 miles per hour. There was a conflict as to the extent the car bell was sounded and as to what efforts were made to slacken the speed of the car or to stop it immediately before the collision. It was established beyond controversy that the car collided with the wagon back of the front wheels and immediately in front of or with the hind wheels of the wagon, but that the latter were not broken in any way so as to indicate that they came in contact with the car. The owner of the wagon said they were racked a little. The wheels were not splintered or marked, neither was any part of the wagon broken by the collision itself, unless it was the wagon reach. The car was not broken or injured in any way other than a few scratches on the front end. The lights in the car did not go out, nor were they disturbed. The jar of the car was not sufficient to inconvenience the two passengers on the car or attract their attention particularly to the fact that anything unusual had happened. The motorman was not moved from his place at all, neither was the conductor, except slightly, as the brake was put upon the car and the current reversed to stop it. The motorman brought his car to a dead stop almost at the instant of the collision, the location of the car after the stop being about at the manhole in the center of the street. The space occupied by the team and wagon was about 21 feet long. When the occupants of the wagon were so located that they had full opportunity to see a car, if one was coming, at any point within 800 feet from the crossing, the horses' heads were about 15 feet from the north rail of the track; from that time till they were frightened by the approach of the car they traveled about 20 feet, and up to the instant of the collision they traveled about 30 feet. At most, according to the finding of the jury, the car was going not to exceed 10 miles per hour or about 3 1/2 times as fast as the horses were traveling when the motorman first applied his brake, which was some distance from the point of collision. Plaintiff and some of those who were associated with her in the wagon, at the time of the accident, testified, all agreeing substantially, that they looked for a car when they could easily have seen one if it was within a distance of 350 feet from the crossing and when the horses' heads were within about 15 feet from the north rail of the track, and that the car struck the wagon in the vicinity of the hind wheels. They stated that they looked east and saw no car; that they then looked west and, hearing a car approaching but not seeing it, and supposing it was coming from the west and was obscured by a turn in the track a block away, they continued to look in that direction for a brief space of time till the noise of the car so increased that they were moved to turn and look again to the east, when the car was almost upon them. There was evidence of some disturbance of the horses caused by the approach of the car, but it was practically undisputed that such disturbance did not occur till about the time the horses stepped upon the track and the occupants of the wagon observed their peril.

Stating some of the material evidence more in detail, without attempting to quote what was said by witnesses verbatim,--the city engineer stated that by taking an observation east on Wisconsin street at a distance of 31 feet and some inches north of the north rail of the track--the point at which it is claimed the occupants looked east--an approaching car could have been seen if located at any point for a distance of 349 feet from where the collision occurred, and that at a point a few inches nearer the track, one could have seen a car located anywhere on the track to the east for a distance of about 800 feet. One of the occupants of the wagon said that when she looked east she could see all the way up to a point which was over 800 feet from the crossing. Witness Haggarty, for plaintiff, said she saw the team on Wisconsin street; that she saw them when the wagon was coming onto the street; that in an instant or so she saw the car coming at a point that was about 140 feet from the crossing; that her attention was on the car for a brief space of time; that then she heard a person in the wagon holler, whereupon she looked again at the team and it was on the track, at which time the car was about 40 feet from the line of Farwell street; that the team was walking till the front end of the wagon was on the north rail when they commenced to prance from fear. Witness Becker, for plaintiff, said that he saw the occurrence and saw the team and the car shortly before the collision; that when he saw the team first they were just coming over the sidewalk or crossing on the north side of Wisconsin street, and that the car at that time was almost to Farwell street; that the car struck the wagon mostly on the hind wheels; that when he first saw the horses the car was nearly to the line of Farwell street; that the car was a little way up the hill; that the horses were afraid of the car for it was right near them; that he could not tell just where the car was when he first saw the horses. Witness Rustin, for plaintiff, said he saw the accident; that the car passed him at a point that was about 140 feet from the place of the collision, before he saw the team; that when he saw...

To continue reading

Request your trial
75 cases
  • Spring Val. Water Co. v. City and County of San Francisco
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • October 7, 1908
    ......Co. v. Minnesota, 186. U.S. 257, 22 Sup.Ct. 900, 46 L.Ed. 1151; Stafford v. Chippewa, etc., R.R. Co., 110 Wis. 331, 351, 85 N.W. 1036; Capital City Gas Co. v. Des ......
  • Willette v. Rhinelander Paper Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin
    • April 7, 1911
    ...64 N. W. 1041, 30 L. R. A. 504, 51 Am. St. Rep. 912;Sharon v. Winnebago F. M. Co., 141 Wis. 185, 124 N. W. 299;Stafford v. Chippewa, etc., Rd. Co., 110 Wis. 331, 85 N. W. 1036;Van de Bogart v. M. & M. P. Co., 132 Wis. 367, 112 N. W. 443;Walker v. Simmons Mfg. Co., 131 Wis. 542, 111 N. W. 69......
  • Mississippi Cent. R. Co. v. Smith
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • June 8, 1936
    ......887; Cawley v. Ry. Co., 101 Wis. 145, 77 N.W. 179; Stafford v. R. R. Co., 110 Wis. 331, 85 N.W. 1036; Marshall v. R. R. Co., 125 ...647, 15 S.E. 825. . . In. Chicago & M. Elec. R. Co. v. Krempel, 103 Ill.App. 1, it. was said that the loss of a ......
  • Mississippi Cent. R. Co. v. Aultman
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • April 8, 1935
    ......887; Cawley v. Railway Co., 101 Wis. 145, 77 N.W. 179; Stafford v. R. R. Co., 110 Wis. 331, 85 N.W. 1036; Marshal v. R. R. Co., 125 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT