Has right to assume that trolley car approaching him along Delaney v. Yonkers R. Co. (N. Y.)...................... PAGE 618, note. Person traveling along or across trolley railway not bound Rules which govern traveler in approaching steam railway Citizen's St. Ry. Co. v. Albright (Ind.).. Evansville St. Railroad Co. v. Gentry (Ind.) . 598 613, note. ... 613, note. Rule requiring traveler to both look and listen before cross- Brozek v. Steinway Ry. Co. (N. Y.)....... Not bound to stop as well as look and listen unless by reason 542 516 495 613, note. Evansville St. Railway Co. v. Gentry (Ind.)..... Snider v. N. O. & Carrollton R. Co. (La.).................. 460 615, note. 583 Not absolved from duty of vigilance by fact of rule or cus- 532 Doyle v. The Albany Railway (N. Y.)......................... ...... While no one should be held to degree of care and caution McLaughlin v. N. O. & Carrollton R. Co. (La.)...................... Passenger in vehicle, injured by collision with trolley car, Strauss v. Newburgh Elec. Ry. Co. (N. Y.).............. 484 618, note www\ Erroneous to charge that person riding in vehicle had right Johnson v. Superior Rapid Trans. Ry. Co.(Wis.) Held contributory negligence per se: PAGE 619, note To attempt to cross track without looking or listening, when Smith v. City and Suburban Ry. Co. (Oregon)... .... 561 To step from behind car on one track and attempt to cross Baltimore Traction Co. v. Helms (Md.)... . . . . . . . 616, note. For one walking close to or about to cross track not to both Young v. Citizens' St. R. Co. (Ind.)... For person working about track not to listen for approach- Eddy v. Cedar Rapids & N.C. Ry. Co. (Iowa.).......... 479 614, note. For man of mature age, in good health and in full posses- Everett v. Los Angeles Consol. Elec. Ry. Co. (Cal.).... 460 616, note. To attempt to cross track without looking for approaching ... Doyle v. The Albany Railway (N. Y.).................. 539 Watson v. Mound City St. Ry. Co. (Mo.) ..... 500 To drive, with horse walking, diagonally across track in Meyer v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co. (N. Y.)...... 540 For person driving on track of electric street railway, hear- Morrissey v. Bridgeport Traction Co. (Conn.)........ 470 For boy ten years old, riding in end of wagon, and being Mullen v. Springfield St. Ry. Co. (Mass.)..... 492 For mother to allow children of three and five years to play Albert v. The Albany Railway (N. Y.)...... Person who, alighting from trolley car on side opposite plat- McLeod v. Graven (U.S.)....... PAGE 529 620, note. Plaintiff held properly nonsuited for contributory negli- 613, note. Cain v. Macon Consol. St. Ry. Co. (Ga.)......... Lockwood v. Belle City St. Ry. Co. (Wis.)...... Held not contributory negligence per se: 619, note. To attempt to cross track in front of trolley car 300 feet Consolidated Traction Co. v. Lambertson (N. J.).................. 514 Zimmerman v. Union Railway Co. (N. Y.).......... .... 527 Seigrist v. Citizens' Rapid Trans. Co. (Tenn.).................. 583 For person approaching street railway 40 or 50 feet in front 542 To fail to look in each direction before crossing track of Cincinnati St. Ry. Co. v. Snell (Ohio). 436 For person having looked for car once on entering street Hall v. Ogden City St. Ry. Co. (Utah).. 593 For person whose attention was distracted by runaway City Elec. Ry. Co. v. Jones (Ill.)................... 473 For person driving on track to not turn out on receiving Camden, &c. Ry. Co. v. Preston (N. J.)...... 523 For person driving on one track to turn on to parallel track State, Consol. Traction Co. Pros. v. Reeves (N.J.).... PAGE 505 Mahoney v. San Francisco, &c. Ry. Co. (Cal.) 457 ...... For man blind and deaf to travel unattended in street tra- Robbins v. Springfield St. Ry. Co. (Mass.). 485 To reasonably and carefully exercise horse, though young Flewelling v. Lewiston & Auburn R. Co. (Me.)....... 488 To allow horse to become untied so that it strayed upon track ... 612, note. For mother to permit child three years old, in care of brother Clyde Harkins v. Pittsburg, &c. Traction Co. (Pa.) .. Hewitt v. Taunton St. Ry. Co. (Mass.).................... 571 616, note. Traveler held possibly excusable for miscalculation in at- Walls v. Rochester Ry. Co. (N.Y.).. 617, note. Duty of telegraph companies to their customers and the By Kentucky constitution, company is common carrier, and in South Dakota is common carrier by statute, and as 770 824 No cause of action for failure to deliver message relating to Gist v. W. U. Tel. Co. (S. C.).................. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Harper (Tex.)........ PAGE 876, note 880, note What is not dealing in "futures" within statutory prohibi- Western Union Tel. Co. v. Littlejohn (Miss.).... 876, nots. If addressee has both place of business and residence at Western Union Tel. Co. v. Woods (Kan.)....... 875, nota. Company liable for failure to find addressee of telegram 880, nota. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Birchfield (Tex.)............. Both sender and addressee of telegram altered in course of Shingleur v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Miss.)...... Company liable to beneficiary, though other than sender or Western Union Tel. Co. v. Morrison (Tex.)..... Person neither sender nor addressee, but who has merely .... Omitting word from intelligible commercial telegram, and Dixon v. W. U. Tel. Co. (N. Y.)............. 783 877, note. 878 808 875, note. In action for delay of telegram, recovery precluded by fail- Brumfield v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Iowa)..... Unavoidable delay in delivery constitutes no breach of duty Western Union Tel. Co. v. Stiles (Tex.)......... 878, note. |