Felton v. Midland Continental Railroad, a Railway Corporation

• Decision Date: 30 October 1915
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

155 N.W. 23

32 N.D. 223

B. F. FELTON v. MIDLAND CONTINENTAL RAILROAD, a Railway Corporation

Supreme Court of North Dakota

October 30, 1915

Rehearing denied November 30, 1915.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Stutsman County Coffey, J. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Buck & Jorgenson, for appellant.

In actions based upon the negligence or omission of a statutory duty by a railroad company in regard to its road, a recovery as in other cases, may be denied on account of contributory negligence. Reynolds v. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. 70 Kan. 340, 78 P. 801, 17 Am. Neg. Rep. 228; Ward v Paducah & M. R. Co. 4 F. 862; Marshall & E. T. R. Co. v. Petty, Tex. Civ. App. , 134 S.W. 406; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Jones, 110 Ill.App. 626; Millhouse v. Chicago, St. L. & P. R. Co. 7 Ohio C. C. 466, 4 Ohio C. D. 682; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Simonton, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 558, 22 S.W. 285; Sherman v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 93 Ark. 24, 123 S.W. 1182; Hearne v. Southern P. R. Co. 50 Cal. 482; Southern R. Co. v. Jay, 137 Ga. 60, 72 S.E. 503; Ferrier v. Chicago R. Co. 185 Ill.App. 326; Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Barnett, 56 Ill.App. 384; Baltimore & O. S.W. R. Co. v. Ayers, 119 Ill.App. 108; Chicago, P. & St. L. R. Co. v. Zetsche, 135 Ill.App. 622; Wabash R. Co. v. Tippecanoe Loan & T. Co. 178 Ind. 113, 38 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1167, 98 N.E. 64; Payne v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 108 Iowa 188, 78 N.W. 813; Dieckmann v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 145 Iowa 250, 31 L.R.A.(N.S.) 338, 139 Am. St. Rep. 420, 121 N.W. 676; Chicago R. Co. v. Bartley, Kan. , 53 P. 66; Tatum v. Rock Island, A. & L. R. Co. 124 La. 924, 50 So. 796; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Sumrall, 96 Miss. 860, 51 So. 545; Gumm v. Kansas City Belt R. Co. 141 Mo.App. 306, 125 S.W. 796; Crabtree v. Missouri P. R. Co. 86 Neb. 33, 136 Am. St. Rep. 663, 124 N.W. 932; Hoopes v. West Jersey & S. R. Co. 65 N.J.L. 89, 47 A. 27, 8 Am. Neg. Rep. 274; Runyon v. Central R. Co. 25 N.J.L. 556; Koehler v. Rochester & L. O. R. Co. 66 Hun, 566, 21 N.Y.S. 844; Spencer v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. 123 A.D. 789, 108 N.Y.S. 245; Legg v. Erie R. Co. 141 A.D. 876, 126 N.Y.S. 451, 124 N.Y.S. 8; Coleman v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. 153 N.C. 322, 69 S.E. 251; Gosa v. Southern R. Co. 67 S.C. 347, 45 S.E. 810; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Matula, 79 Tex. 577, 15 S.W. 573, 19 S.W. 376; International & G. N. R. Co. v. Dyer, 76 Tex. 156, 13 S.W. 377; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Polk, Tex. Civ. App. , 63 S.W. 343; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Shieder, Tex. Civ. App. , 26 S.W. 509; Bassford v. Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. 70 W.Va. 280, 73 S.E. 926; McCann v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 44 C. C. A. 566, 105 F. 480, 9 Am. Neg. Rep. 417; Royle v. Canadian Northern R. Co. 14 Manitoba L. Rep. 275; Atkinson v. Grand Trunk R. Co. 17 Ont. Rep. 220.

In such cases it is the duty of one to exercise ordinary care in protecting his property; and the amount of care is proportionate to the degree of danger. Cottle v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. 82 Conn. 142, 72 A. 727; Elliott v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. 84 Conn. 444, 80 A. 283; Reed v. Queen Anne's R. Co. 4 Penn. (Del.) 413, 57 A. 529; Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Stommel, 126 Ind. 35, 25 N.E. 863; Cincinnati, H. & I. R. Co. v. Butler, 103 Ind. 31, 2 N.E. 138; Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Cyr, 43 Ind.App. 19, 86 N.E. 868; Goodrich v. Burlington, C. R. & N. R. Co. 97 Iowa 521, 66 N.W. 770; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Knowles, 6 Kan.App. 790, 51 P. 230; Harlan v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co. 65 Mo. 22; Riley v. Missouri P. R. Co. 69 Neb. 82, 95 N.W. 20; Central R. Co. v. Moore, 24 N.J.L. 824; Weber v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. 58 N.Y. 451.

But greater care and diligence are required according as the peculiar locality and circumstances of the case seem to call for greater caution. Martin v. Baltimore & P. R. Co. 2 Marv. (Del.) 123, 42 A. 442; Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Wallace, 110 Ill. 114; Southern R. Co. v. Winchester, 127 Ky. 144, 105 S.W. 167; Morris v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 26 F. 22.

Approaching a crossing at a speed which renders it difficult if not impossible to avoid an accident, after discovering the danger, is negligence barring a recovery. Wilds v. Hudson River R. Co. 24 N.Y. 430, 23 How. Pr. 492; Morse v. Erie R. Co. 65 Barb. 490; Martin v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. 21 N.Y.S. 919.

Where a person knows or ought to know of dangers at a crossing, and fails to use care and caution, as a prudent person should do under like circumstances, he cannot recover, even though the railroad company was negligent. Haas v. Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. 47 Mich. 401, 11 N.W. 216; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Greenlee, 62 Tex. 344; Duncan v. Missouri P. R. Co. 46 Mo.App. 198; Pakalinsky v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. 82 N.Y. 424; Metropolitan Trust & Sav. Bank v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 150 Ill.App. 407; Chicago & E. R. Co. v. Sutherland, 88 Ill.App. 295; Bjork v. Illinois C. R. Co. 85 Ill.App. 269; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Stumpf, 97 Md. 78, 54 A. 978, 14 Am. Neg. Rep. 57; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Eckman, 137 Ky. 331, 125 S.W. 729.

Neither is the degree of care required lessened in an emergency, if his perilous position is due to his own negligence. Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Foshee, 125 Ala. 199, 27 So. 1006; Peck v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. 50 Conn. 379; Richfield v. Michigan C. R. Co. 110 Mich. 406, 68 N.W. 218; Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co. v. Murphy, 18 Ohio C. C. 298, 10 Ohio C. D. 195; Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Hall, 109 Va. 296, 63 S.E. 1007; Liermann v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 82 Wis. 286, 33 Am. St. Rep. 37, 52 N.W. 91; Macon & W. R. Co. v. Winn, 26 Ga. 250; Texarkana & Ft. S. R. Co. v. Bullington, Ark. , 47 S.W. 560; Weller v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 120 Mo. 635, 23 S.W. 1061, 25 S.W. 532; Martin v. Little Rock & Ft. S. R. Co. 62 Ark. 156, 34 S.W. 545; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Bednorz, 57 Ill.App. 309; Quinn v. Chicago & E. R. Co. 162 Ind. 442, 70 N.E. 526; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Lucas, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 359, 98 S.W. 308, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 539, 99 S.W. 959; Sosnofski v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 134 Mich. 72, 95 S.W. 1077; Buckley v. Flint & P. M. R. Co. 119 Mich. 583, 78 N.W. 655; Collins v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. 92 Hun, 563, 36 N.Y.S. 942; Rusterholtz v. New York C. & St. L. R. Co. 191 Pa. 390, 43 A. 208; Schmidt v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. 149 Pa. 357, 24 A. 218; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. McTighe, 46 Pa. 316; International & G. N. R. Co. v. Locke, Tex. Civ. App. , 67 S.W. 1082; White v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 102 Wis. 489, 78 N.W. 585.

If plaintiff knew of another way which was safe, he was bound to take it. McAdory v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 109 Ala. 636, 19 So. 905; Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Ragan, 167 Ala. 277, 52 So. 522; Evans v. Charleston & W. C. R. Co. 108 Ga. 270, 33 S.E. 901; Reynolds v. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. 70 Kan. 340, 78 P. 801, 17 Am. Neg. Rep. 228; Artman v. Kansas Cent. R. Co. 22 Kan. 296; Maryland Electric R. Co. v. Beasley, 117 Md. 270, 83 A. 157; Slattery v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. 203 Mass. 453, 133 Am. St. Rep. 311, 89 N.E. 622; Schonhoff v. Jackson Branch R. Co. 97 Mo. 151, 10 S.W. 618; Harper v. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. 70 Mo.App. 604; Sonn v. Erie R. Co. 66 N.J.L. 428, 49 A. 458, 10 Am. Neg. Rep. 315; Gramlich v. Railroad Co. 9 Phila. 78; International & G. N. R. Co. v. Lewis, Tex. Civ. App. , 63 S.W. 1091, 64 S.W. 1011; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Neill, Tex. Civ. App. , 30 S.W. 369; Evans v. Charleston & W. C. R. Co. 108 Ga. 270, 33 S.E. 901; Denver v. Hubbard, 29 Colo. 529, 69 P. 508; Weston v. Troy, 139 N.Y. 281, 34 N.E. 780; Guthrie v. Swan, 5 Okla. 779, 51 P. 562, 3 Am. Neg. Rep. 460; Gerdes v. Christopher & S. Architectural Iron & Foundry Co. 124 Mo. 347, 25 S.W. 557, 27 S.W. 615; Kornetski v. Detroit, 94 Mich. 341, 53 N.W. 1106; McCool v. Grand Rapids, 58 Mich. 41, 55 Am. Rep. 655, 24 N.W. 631; Cole v. Scranton, 4 Lack. Leg. News, 287; Bowman v. Ogden City, 33 Utah 196, 93 P. 561; Pierce v. Wilmington, 2 Marv. (Del.) 306, 43 A. 162; Henderson v. Burke, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1781, 44 S.W. 422; Columbus v. Griggs, 113 Ga. 597, 84 Am. St. Rep. 257, 38 S.E. 953, 10 Am. Neg. Rep. 28; Moore v. Huntington, 31 W.Va. 842, 8 S.E. 512; Muller v. District of Columbia, 5 Mackey, 286; Harrigan v. Brooklyn, 42 N.Y. S. R. 625, 16 N.Y.S. 743; Carswell v. Wilmington, 2 Marv. (Del.) 360, 43 A. 169; Roe v. Crimmins, 10 Misc. 711, 31 N.Y.S. 807, affirmed in 155 N.Y. 690, 50 N.E. 1122; Buchholtz v. Radcliffe, 129 Iowa 27, 105 N.W. 336, 19 Am. Neg. Rep. 219; Friday v. Moorhead, 84 Minn. 273, 87 N.W. 780; Marshall v. Belle Plaine, 106 Iowa 508, 76 N.W. 797; Swanwick v. Monongahela City, 36 Pa. S.Ct. 628; Idlett v. Atlanta, 123 Ga. 821, 51 S.E. 709; Evans v. Brookville, 5 Pa. S.Ct. 298; Rusch v. Davenport, 6 Iowa 443; Griffin v. New York, 9 N.Y. 456, 61 Am. Dec. 700.

Even if a railroad company in the construction or maintenance of its road is guilty of negligence or of the omission of some statutory duty, there can be no recovery unless such negligence or omission was the proximate cause of the injury. Chapin v. Sullivan R. Co. 39 N.H. 53, 75 Am. Dec 207; Gulf & C. R. Co. v. Sneed, 84 Miss. 252, 36 So. 261; Biggerstaff v. St. Louis R. Co. 60 Mo. 567; Grau v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co. 54 Mo. 240; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Johnson, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 322, 85 S.W. 476; Gulf, B. & G. N. R. Co. v. Tucker, 38 Tex. Civ. App. 224, 85 S.W. 461; 29 Cyc. 488, and cases cited in note 29; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Dobbins, Tex. Civ. App. , 40 S.W. 861; 29 Cyc. 490, and cases cited in note 41; Ward v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 102 Wis. 215, 78 N.W. 442; Deisenrieter v. Kraus-Merkel Malting Co. 97 Wis. 279, 72 N.W. 735; Seith v. Commonwealth Electric Co. 241 Ill. 252, 24 L.R.A.(N.S.) 978, 132 Am. St. Rep. 204, 89 N.E. 425; Strobeck v. Bren, 93 Minn. 428...