Snyder v. Peoples Railway Co.

• Decision Date: 01 December 1902
• Citation: 20 Del. 145,53 A. 433
• Court: Delaware Superior Court
• Parties: FREDERICK C. SNYDER v. PEOPLES RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation of the State of Delaware

53 A. 433

20 Del. 145

FREDERICK C. SNYDER v. PEOPLES RAILWAY COMPANY, a corporation of the State of Delaware

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County

December 1, 1902

Superior Court, New Castle County, November Term, 1902.

ACTION ON THE CASE (No. 99, November Term, 1901).

Verdict for plaintiff for $ 1000.

William F. Kurtz and Walter H. Hayes for plaintiff.

William S. Hilles for defendant.

LORE C. J., and SPRUANCE and GRUBB, J. J., sitting.

OPINION

SPRUANCE, J., charging the jury:

Gentlemen of the jury:--This action was brought to recover damages for injuries occasioned by a collision between an electric car of the defendant company and a wagon of the plaintiff, in which he was riding, at the intersection of Second and Adams streets in the City of Wilmington, on the seventeenth of September, 1901.

The plaintiff claims that he was exercising due and proper care and diligence, and that the sole cause of the collision was the negligence or recklessness of the defendant company in not checking or stopping the car before coming in contact with the wagon; and that by reason thereof his wagon was broken and damaged, and he was thrown violently out of the wagon upon the street and sustained great and permanent bodily injuries.

The defendant claims that the proper signal of the approach of the car was given in due time, that the speed of the car was moderate, that the motorman exercised due care and diligence in attempting to avoid the collision, and that the accident was not due to any neglect or default on the part of the company or any of its servants, but was solely due to the negligence of the plaintiff in driving his wagon upon the railway track in front of the approaching car.

The defendant also contends that, even if there was some negligence on its part, there was negligence on the part of the plaintiff which should defeat his claim for damages.

Second Street and Adams Street are public highways. The defendant company uses and has the right to use Second Street for the purposes of its railway thereon, and the public have the right to use that and the intersecting streets, of which Adams Street is one, for the ordinary purposes of a public street.

The railway company and the public are required by law to use due and proper care in the exercise of their respective rights.

"The right of each must be exercised with due regard to the right of the other, and the right of each must be exercised in a reasonable and careful manner, so as not unreasonably to abridge or interfere with the right of the other."

Price vs. Warner Co., 17 Del. 462, 1 Penne. 462, 42 A. 699.

"It is the duty of the company to provide competent and careful motormen and servants; to see that they use reasonable care in operating the cars; that the cars move at a reasonable rate of speed, and that they slow up or stop if need be, where danger is imminent. There is a like duty of exercising reasonable care on the part of people who may otherwise use such highway, to stop, and, if need be, to turn out and keep out of the tracks of the cars in the presence of danger."

Brown vs. Railway Company, 17 Del. 332, 1 Penne. 332, 40 A. 936.

We will not attempt to specify the precise acts of precaution which are necessary to be done or omitted by one in the management of an electric car, or by one in the management of a wagon approaching a railway crossing. Such acts must depend upon the circumstances of each case, and the degree of care required differs in different cases. The general rule is that the person in the management of the car and the person in the management of the wagon are bound to the reasonable use of their sight and hearing for the prevention of accident, and to the exercise of such reasonable caution as an ordinarily careful and prudent person would use under like circumstances.

Brown vs. Railway Company, 17 Del. 332, 1 Penne. 332, 336, 40 A. 936.

What is due and proper care depends upon the facts in each case.

Where the railway approaches the crossing at a steep down grade, or where the rails are wet and slippery, or where the view of the railway from the crossing street is obstructed by buildings or otherwise, greater care is required of the person in charge of the car than where the approach of the railway to the crossing is at or near the grade of the crossing, or where the rails are in their usual condition, or where the view of the railway is unobstructed.

"A person approaching a railway crossing...