Company not bound to so manage its cars that vehicles
on its tracks shall not in any event be injured, however
careless driver of vehicle may be.

Morrissey v. Bridgeport Traction Co. (Conn.)...........................
Negligent to run car with motorman only, coupled with
fact that motorman, after seeing traveler about to cross
street, left brake and power handles unattended, while
car running rapidly, and went inside to collect fares.
City Elec. Ry. Co. v. Jones (Ill.)

.......

Motorman bound to have car under control and so to
operate same as to give reasonable opportunity for vehicles
to leave track, and to exercise reasonable diligence to dis-
cover obstruction.

Fishbach v. Steinway Ry. Co. (N. Y.)......

Bound to maintain such distance between his car and horse
car in front, or to so reduce speed, that he can stop in
time to prevent collision.

Wynne v. Atlantic Av. R. Co. (N. Y.).........................

PAGE

4:0

473

347

617, note.

While movement of trolley cars rapidly between crossings
is not of itself evidence of negligence (as is such running
at crossings) such movement in city street requires vigi-
lant lookout of those in charge of cars.

Evers v. Philadelphia Traction Co. (Pa.).................

575

Not negligence per se to run car at speed greater than per-
mitted by ordinance.

Hall v. Ogden City St. Ry. Co. (Utah.)......

599

Bound, particularly at crossings, to be careful and watchful.
McLaughlin v. N. O. & Carrollton R. Co. (La.).....................
Bound to have cars under control when approaching cross-
ing.

484

Penny v. Rochester Ry. Co. (N. Y.)...................
Motorman should observe whether track clear when ap-
proaching public crossing, and sound gong as warning.
Hall v. Ogden City St. Ry. Co. (Utah.)..

535

....

538

Negligent if, when approaching crossing, he sees traveler
near track and fails to have car under reasonable control.
Seigrist v. Citizen's Rapid Trans. Co. (Tenn.)........

583

While receiving or discharging passengers at street cross-
ings, must not unnecessarily expose pedestrians to danger
from collision with cars passing on opposite track.
Consolidated Traction Co. v. Scott (N. J.).

516

Bound to use only ordinary care to prevent injury at cross-
ing.

City Elec. Ry. Co. v. Jones (Ill.).......

Motorman seeing wagon on track and that collision is prob-
able bound to avoid it if he can. Question of his negli-
gence for jury.

If motorman sees person apparently heedless of signals, his
failure to use means in his power to avoid injury presents
question of negligence for jury.

Buttelli v. Jersey City, &c. Ry. Co. (N. J.)............................
Though traveler negligent, still action not defeated if com-
pany could by reasonable prudence and ordinary care have
avoided injury.

Hall v. Ogden City St. Ry. Co. (Utah.)..

Above rule applies only where person injured is in position
of danger which he cannot, and company or its employes
can, prevent.

Everett v. Los Angeles Consol. Elec. Ry. Co. (Cal.)...
Presupposes prior negligence of person injured, effect of
which might be avoided by those in charge of car.
Watson v. Mound City St. Ry. Co. (Mo.).......

Although possible from evidence that person injured was
guilty of negligence without which injury would have been
averted, still held question for jury, it appearing that car
was running much faster than permitted by ordinance and
that no warning was given.

Dederichs v. Salt Lake City Ry. Co. (Utah).....

Erroneous to charge that even if plaintiff negligent, still she
should recover if motorman saw her approaching track
unconscious of approach of car, and did not exercise ordi-
nary care for her safety.

PAGE

473

523

510

598

460

500

592

Johnson v. Superior Rapid Trans. Ry. Co. (Wis.).. 619, note.

Though traveler in first instance guilty of contributory neg-
ligence in causing collision with trolley car, he is not barred
from recovery for injury caused by car starting again
after it had once stopped.

McDevitt v. Des Moines St. Ry. Co. (Iowa).....

614, note.

Negligence may be predicated of fact that motorman was
looking not ahead but at persons assembled beside car
and so failed to see child in time to avoid injury.

George Harkins v. Pittsburg, &c. Traction Co. (Pa.).

569

Motorman who with due attention should have seen child
on or near tracks should seasonably use means to avert
accident.

PAGE

616, note,

Nelson v. Crescent City R. Co. (La.)................................
Motorman has right to assume that traveler in front has
heard warning, and will increase speed or turn aside in
time to avoid injury.

Everett v. Los Angeles Consol. Elec. Ry. Co. (Cal.)...
Morrissey v. Bridgeport Traction Co. (Conn.)........

Not bound to anticipate that traveler after being warned
will attempt to cross immediately in front of car.

McLaughlin v. N. O. & Carrollton R. Co. (La.)

......

Not bound to anticipate boy's sudden attempt to cross track
immediately in front of car.

Funk v. Electric Traction Co. (Pa.)...........

460

470

484

619, note.

Or that boy will jump from rear end of wagon about to pass
car and step on track in front of car.

Mullen v. Springfield St. Ry. Co. (Mass.)....

492

Not bound to stop car at once, on seeing children crossing
track far in advance, but only when there is reason to
apprehend that they cannot cross in safety.

Stabenau v. Atlantic Ave. Ry. Co. (N. Y.)................

552

Not bound to stop or slow car on seeing child standing in
gutter or to anticipate that it will suddenly step in front
of car.

573

615, note.

Fleishman v. Neversink Mountain R. Co. (Pa.).................
No recovery if accident due to sudden act of child which
could not have been foreseen or guarded against by those
in charge of car.

.....

Culbertson v. Crescent City R. Co. (La.)..
Negligent to continue car in motion and gong sounding,
though seeing that horses in front are frightened and un-
manageable.

Hair v. Citizens' Ry. Co. (Tex.)..

589

In such case, motorman bound to refrain from sounding
gong and to stop car.

Mere fact that horse frightened at electric car and at sound
of gong does not make company liable.

Galesburg Elec. Motor and Power Co. v. Manville (Ill.)
Not negligent for slowing instead of stopping car on seeing
fright of horse.

Bishop v. Belle City St. Ry. Co. (Wis.)........

476

019, note

PAGE

620, note

Not bound to slacken speed and stop car at moment horse
shows signs of uneasiness.

Eastwood v. La Crosse City Ry. Co. (Wis.)......

Not bound to slow car though seeing that horse is fright-
ened unless it is actually on track in front, or there is rea-
sonable ground to believe it may go on, and cause collision.
Doster v. Charlotte St. Ry. Co. (N. C.)..................

Not negligence per se to start electric car in ordinary way
while team of horses manifesting no symptoms of fright
are driven past it.

McDonald v. Toledo Consol. St. Ry. Co. (U. S.).

Company not chargeable with negligence because motorman
in certain emergency does not choose one rather than the
other of two appliances for stopping car.

558

620,

note.

Stabenau v. Atlantic Ave. Ry. Co. (N. Y.).

552

......

No such general use of fenders on trolley cars in 1893 as to
make failure to use them negligence.

Mullen v. Springfield St. Ry. Co. (Mass.)...

492

Question for jury whether company negligent in omitting
to provide sand, use of which would have enabled car to
be stopped in time to prevent injury to traveler.
Penny v. Rochester Ry. Co. (N. Y.)...................

Proof that company negligent in employment of motorman
or equipment of car will not warrant recovery for injury
by collision without proof that accident caused by these
breaches of duty.

Snider v. N. O. & Carrollton R. Co. (La.).................

Questions of negligence of company held proper for jury.
Brozek v. Steinway Ry. Co. (N. Y.).............
Strauss v. Newburgh Elec. Ry. Co. (N. Y.)
Woeckner v. Erie Elec. Motor Co. (Pa.).
Zimmerman v. Union Railway Co. (N. Y.).

535

615, note.

542

.....

618, note.

581

527

Questions of negligence and contributory negligence held
proper for jury.

Conner v. Electric Traction Co. (Pa.)......
Dobert v. Troy City Ry. Co. (N. Y.)..
Evers v. Philadelphia Traction Co. (Pa.)..
Faurot v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co. (N. Y.)
Fishbach v. Steinway Ry. Co. (N. Y.)......
Kitchell v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co. (N. Y.)..
Leckner v. Citizens' Traction Co. (Pa.)..
Rauscher v. Philadelphia Traction Co. (Pa.)...

.....

619, note.
617, note.

575

617, note.

547

618, note.

619, note.

619. note.

Miscellaneous questions of practice, evidence, instructions
to jury, damages, etc.

Galbraith v. West End St. Ry. Co. (Mass.).
Geipel v. Steinway Ry. Co. (N. Y.).

PAGE

......

616, note.

619, note.

Guilloz v. Ft. Wayne & Belle Isle Ry. Co. (Mich.)
Kilbain v. Westchester Ry. Co. (N. Y.)......
Milliman v. Rochester Ry. Co. (N. Y.)..
Reger v. Rochester Ry. Co. (N. Y.)..........
Schneidau v. N. O. & Carrollton Ry. Co. (La.)..
Slensby v. Milwaukee St. Ry. Co. (Wis.)..
Van Natta v. People's St. Ry. Co. (Mo.)...
Wilkins v. Omaha, &c. Ry. & Bridge Co. (Iowa.).

616, note.

618, note.

618, note.

618, note.

616, note.

...

620, note.

616, note.

614, note.

Duty of travelers upon highways to guard against in-
jury by electric cars.

Traveler must not obstruct track of trolley car of approach
of which he has notice.

Camden, &c. Ry. Co. v. Preston (N. J.)..........

No more stringent rule exists, as to contributory negligence
of person driving in track, than that he must exercise rea-
sonable care to avoid collision, this to be determined from
consideration of the obligation resting upon operator of
car, burden of use imposed upon street by general traffic,
and rule that car has paramount but not exclusive right
of way.

Fishbach v. Steinway Ry. Co. (N. Y.).....................

In crossing street traversed by electric surface cars, should
use such precaution and care for his safety as reasonably
prudent man would use under same circumstances.

523

547

Consolidated Traction Co. v. Chenowith (N. J.). 617, note.

At street crossings, must exercise reasonable degree of care
and watchfulness to avoid injury by trolley car.

McLaughlin v. N. O. & Carrollton R. Co. (La.)..................
Should carefully observe movements of cars and strive to
avoid them.

Flewelling v. Lewiston & Auburn Horse R. Co. (Me.)
Has right to assume car has proper appliances and motor-
man to apply same, and not bound to refrain from cross-
ing track for fear same will not be used.

484

488

Consolidated Traction Co. v. Lambertson (N. J.)...............

514

Has right to assume company will use its franchise in view
of his rights.

Mahoney v. San Francisco, &c.,Ry. Co. (Cal.).......

457