Rio Grande Ry Co v. Leak
Decision Date | 18 May 1896 |
Docket Number | No. 285,285 |
Citation | 41 L.Ed. 160,16 S.Ct. 1020,163 U.S. 280 |
Parties | RIO GRANDE W. RY. CO. v. LEAK |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This writ of error brings up for review a judgment of the supreme court of the territory of Utah, affirming a judgment of the district court of the Third judicial district in that territory in favor of the defendant in error, based upon the verdict of a jury against the Rio Grande Western Railway Company for the sum of $13,370.
It is averred in the complaint that on or about the 11th day of July, 1891, the plaintiff, Leak, was engaged in his business of hauling ore to cars of the defendant situated on its track, and was traveling with his team of horses and wagon on a wagon road usually traveled, and provided by defendant to be traveled, in the business of the hauling of ores to its cars; that when he had reached the place or crossing where the wagon road crossed the railroad track, the defendant carelessly and negligently caused a train of cars to approach the crossing, and then and there to pass rapidly over its track, and negligently and carelessly omitted its duty while approaching that crossing to give any signals or warning whatever of the approach of its cars, or to stop or to slacken the speed thereof, by reason whereof the plaintiff, without any fault on his part, was unaware of their approach; that in consequence of this negligence and carelessness of defendant the train of cars struck the plaintiff and his horses and wagon and overset the wagon, whereby he was thrown with great force and violence upon the ground, and underneath said wagon and cars, and thereby greatly bruised, crushed, and maimed, in so much that it became necessary to amputate, and the left leg of the plaintiff was amputated, inflicting upon him lasting and permanent bodily injuries, causing him great bodily pain and mental anguish, damaging him in the sum of $20,000, and compelling him to lay out and expend for doctor's medical attendance $105.
The complainant also asserted a claim for the value of his horses nd wagon alleged to have been killed and destroyed by reason of the carelessness and negligence of the defendant company as above alleged.
The answer puts in issue the allegations of the complaint, and, in addition, states: 'If the plaintiff sustained any injuries or damages whatsoever, the same were caused and occasioned solely by reason and because of his own negligence and carelessness in driving into and remaining in a dangerous place, knowing of the danger, and in negligently and carelessly failing to observe the approach of the cars referred to in the complaint, when the means and opportunity of observation were open to him, and in not removing himself from the place of danger after he knew of the existence thereof, and after he had been warned thereof, and not because or by reason of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the defendant, its officers, agents, or servants.'
The court, after stating that the action was not to recover damages in consequence of any other negligence than that described in the complaint, and that the negligence complained of was that the defendant carelessly and negligently caused its cars to approach the crossing, and failed to give any signal or warning whatever of their approach, or to stop or to slacken their speed before the injury, said:
The defendant excepted to that portion of the above instruction in which the court said that the jury 'should consider all the circumstances under which the defendant caused the acts to be performed as alleged in the co plaint.'
The court properly instructed the jury in relation to the degree of care required at the hands of the defendant and its servants, as well as to their right to judge of the credibility of the witnesses. It further said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barnes v. Berkshire St. Ry. Co.
...v. Vozzela, 247 Mass. 552, 559, 142 N. E. 831;Dutton v. Bennett, 256 Mass. 397, 404, 152 N. E. 621;Rio Grande Western Railway v. Leak, 163 U. S. 280, 287, 288, 16 S. Ct. 1020, 41 L. Ed. 160;Rexter v. Starin, 73 N. Y. 601. The original papers show that the requests in Hicks v. New York, New ......
-
Hickey v. Rio Grande Western Ry. Co.
... ... steam and the following are respectfully referred to the ... court; 2 Shearman & Redfield on Neg., par. 426, and cases ... cited; Patterson, Ry. Accident Law, p. 151, and cases cited; ... 23 Am. and Eng. Enc. of Law, page 744, and cases cited ... In ... Leak v. Ry. Co., 9 Utah 246, it is held that a request, ... which gave undue prominence to certain testimony without ... notice of other testimony, should be refused. This case was ... afterwards affirmed in the 163 U.S. 280. ( Ry. Co. v ... Ives, 144 U.S. 433.) So it can be said in the case at ... ...
-
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Cook-O'Brien Const. Co.
...v. Bell, 206 F. 395 (C. C. A. 6); Grand Trunk Ry. v. Ives, 144 U. S. 408, 12 S. Ct. 679, 36 L. Ed. 485; Rio Grande Western Ry. v. Leak, 163 U. S. 280, 16 S. Ct. 1020, 41 L. Ed. 160; Perovich v. U. S., 205 U. S. 86, 27 S. Ct. 456, 51 L. Ed. 722; 14 R. C. L. 780; Minneapolis Gen. Elec. Co. v.......
-
Peck v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co.
... ... the court, and therefore it was not necessary to repeat them ... in a special request. Leak v. Railway Co., 9 Utah ... 246, 33 P. 1045; Railway Co. v. Leak, 163 U.S. 280, ... 16 S.Ct. 1020, 41 L.Ed. 160; Railroad Co. v. Ives, ... 144 ... ...