Has right to assume that trolley car approaching him along
road impassable except on track would stop before reach-
ing him; he seeing the car when 600 feet away, but call-
ing to motorman only when car 25 feet away.

Delaney v. Yonkers R. Co. (N. Y.)................

PAGE

618, note.

Person traveling along or across trolley railway not bound
to same diligence as in case of steam railway.
Hall v. Ogden City St. Ry. Co. (Utah)..

Rules which govern traveler in approaching steam railway
at crossing do not govern in case of electric street rail-
way.

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-
ing steam railway does not necessarily apply in case of
trolley railway.

Brozek v. Steinway Ry. Co. (N. Y.).......
Consolidated Traction Co. v. Scott (N. J.)..
Robbins v. Springfield St. Ry. Co. (Mass.)..

542
516

495

613, note.

Not bound to stop as well as look and listen unless by reason
of some circumstance ordinary prudence requires it.
Evansville St. Railway Co. v. Gentry (Ind.).....
Bound to look and listen before crossing tracks of electric
railway, same as before crossing tracks of steam railway.
Everett v. Los Angeles Consol. Elec. Ry. Co. (Cal.)..
Bound to look to ascertain whether prudent to attempt
crossing, and should look at time and place where it may
be effective.

Snider v. N. O. & Carrollton R. Co. (La.)......
Not bound to look both ways for approaching trolley cars.
Seigrist v. Citizens' Rapid Trans. Co. (Tenn.)....................

460

615, note.

583

Not absolved from duty of vigilance by fact of rule or cus-
tom of company requiring all cars to stop before passing
car stopped at station.

532

.....

Doyle v. The Albany Railway (N. Y.)......................
While no one should be held to degree of care and caution
beyond his years, boy over eleven years old cannot be re-
lieved from exercise of all care and prudence.

McLaughlin v. N. O. & Carrollton R. Co. (La.)........
Passenger in vehicle, injured by collision with trolley car,
not chargeable with contributory negligence of driver of
vehicle.

Strauss v. Newburgh Elec. Ry. Co. (N. Y.)......

484

618, note

Erroneous to charge that person riding in vehicle had right
to rely on exercise of care by driver, "that both did not
have to look."

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
by doing so injury might have been avoided.

Smith v. City and Suburban Ry. Co. (Oregon)... .

....

To step from behind car on one track and attempt to cross
parallel track without using powers of observation.

Baltimore Traction Co. v. Helms (Md.).......

561

616, note.

For one walking close to or about to cross track not to both
look and listen for approaching cars.

Young v. Citizens' St. R. Co. (Ind.)..................

For person working about track not to listen for approach-
ing cars.

Eddy v. Cedar Rapids & N.C. Ry. Co. (Iowa.)..........

479

614, note.

For man of mature age, in good health and in full posses-
sion of all his faculties, to ride bicycle upon track of
electric street railway without looking or listening for
cars approaching from behind.

Everett v. Los Angeles Consol. Elec. Ry. Co. (Cal.)....
To attempt to cross in front of car, miscalculating chances.
Graff v. Detroit Citizens' St. Ry. Co. (Mich.)...

460

616, note.

To attempt to cross track without looking for approaching
car, or knowing that car is approaching, and miscalculat-
ing chances.

Doyle v. The Albany Railway (N. Y.)..................

532

To attempt to cross track in front of moving trolley car,
when danger known.

Watson v. Mound City St. Ry. Co. (Mo.) .......

500

To drive, with horse walking, diagonally across track in
front of approaching car seen 100 feet away.

Meyer v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co. (N. Y.)...

540

For person driving on track of electric street railway, hear-
ing gong of approaching car and seeing car coming at
speed greater than his own when far enough away to
drive off track and escape injury, not to do so.

Morrissey v. Bridgeport Traction Co. (Conn.).
For boy ten years old, riding in end of wagon, and being
warned, to jump in front of moving car.

470

.....

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

492

For mother to allow children of three and five years to play
in street where trolley cars frequently pass, and to send
them on errands where they must cross track.

Albert v. The Albany Railway (N. Y.)...

Person who, alighting from trolley car on side opposite plat-
form intended for use of passengers, was killed by car on
parallel track, held chargeable with contributory negli-
gence which barred recovery.

PAGE

529

McLeod v. Graven (U.S.)......

620, note.

Plaintiff held properly nonsuited for contributory negli-
gence.

613, note.

Cain v. Macon Consol. St. Ry. Co. (Ga.).........
Judgment for defendant affirmed because of contributory
negligence.

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
away and running rapidly.

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

To attempt to cross electric street railway track at street
crossing when approaching car 150 yards away.

Zimmerman v. Union Railway Co. (N. Y.).....

514

...

527

For traveler having seen car approaching 200 or 250 yards
away while he was only ten feet from track, to attempt to
cross without looking again.

Seigrist v. Citizens' Rapid Trans. Co. (Tenn.)......

583

For person approaching street railway 40 or 50 feet in front
of trolley car to attempt to cross, even if he saw car.
Brozek v. Steinway Ry. Co. (N. Y.)...................

542

To fail to look in each direction before crossing track of
electric street railway.

Cincinnati St. Ry. Co. v. Snell (Ohio)...............

436

For person having looked for car once on entering street
from intersecting alley, and seen none, to cross track
without looking second time.

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

593

For person whose attention was distracted by runaway
team, to go upon track of trolley railway at crossing with-
out looking both ways for approaching cars.

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

473

For person driving on track to not turn out on receiving
warning of approaching car.

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

523

For person driving on one track to turn on to parallel track
to let car pass, so as to debar him from recovery in action
based on collision while he was trying to get back to first
track.

State, Consol. Traction Co. Pros. v. Reeves (N.J.).........

in dark, foggy night, with track of trolley railway on one
side and gulch on the other, to drive on track.

PAGE

505

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

457

For man blind and deaf to travel unattended in street tra-
versed by or crossing electric railway.

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

485

To reasonably and carefully exercise horse, though young
and spirited, in presence of electric cars, to accustom him
to them.

Flewelling v. Lewiston & Auburn R. Co. (Me.).......

To allow horse to become untied so that it strayed upon track
of electric street railway and was killed.
Johnson v. Stewart (Ark.)..

488

...

612, note.

For mother to permit child three years old, in care of brother
fourteen years old, to cross street traversed by electric
railway

Clyde Harkins v. Pittsburg, &c. Traction Co. (Pa.) ..
For parents to permit child four years old to stray upon
track of trolley railway.

Hewitt v. Taunton St. Ry. Co. (Mass.)................

571

616, note.

Traveler held possibly excusable for miscalculation in at-
tempting to cross street ahead of trolley car, by reason of
facts stated; therefore question of her negligence proper
for jury.

Walls v. Rochester Ry. Co. (N.Y.)...................

617, note.

Duty of telegraph companies to their customers and the
public. (See also "Burden of Proof," "Damages,” “Limiting
Liability," "Limiting Time,” “Mental Distress,” etc.)

By Kentucky constitution, company is common carrier, and
cannot contract for relief from its common law liability.
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Eubank & Russell (Ky.)...

In South Dakota is common carrier by statute, and as
such has right to make reasonable rules and regulations.
Kirby v. W. U. Tel. Co. (S. D.).............

770

824

No cause of action for failure to deliver message relating to
transaction in futures.

PAGE

876, note

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Harper (Tex.)........

880, note

What is not dealing in "futures" within statutory prohibi-
tion.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Littlejohn (Miss.)....

876, note.

If addressee has both place of business and residence at
place where terminal office located, message should be de-
livered to some one at house or place of business.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Woods (Kan.)...................

875, nota.

Company liable for failure to find addressee of telegram
directed in "care some 'hotel."

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Birchfield (Tex.)...........

880, nota.

Both sender and addressee of telegram altered in course of
transmission have separate rights of action.

Sender may

783

877,

note.

sue in either contract or tort; addressee, in tort.

If sender voluntarily makes good to addressee latter's loss
due to error in transmission of telegram, he has no
cause of action against company for recoupment.
Shingleur v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Miss.).....

Company liable to beneficiary, though other than sender or
addressee, if his interest disclosed by message.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Morrison (Tex.).....

Person neither sender nor addressee, but who has merely
seen telegram as delivered, and acted upon it to his injury,
cannot recover against company for error in telegram.

McCormack v. W. U. Tel. Co. (U. S.).......

Omitting word from intelligible commercial telegram, and
failure to trace and correct error, although message as
received at terminal office showed that one word was
missing, held to be gross negligence.

Dixon v. W. U. Tel. Co. (N. Y.)................

878

803

875, note.

In action for delay of telegram, recovery precluded by fail-
ure to prove time of delivery at initial or receipt at termi
nal office.

Brumfield v. W. U. Tel. Co. (Iowa).....

Unavoidable delay in delivery constitutes no breach of duty
of company.

Western Union Tel. Co. v. Stiles (Tex.).........
Company not liable for delay of cipher message with nature

878, note.