(DOWNLOAD) "Grant v. Chicago Etc. Ry. Co. Et Al." by Supreme Court of Montana " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Grant v. Chicago Etc. Ry. Co. Et Al.
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 04, 1927
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 68 KB
Description
Personal Injuries ? Railroad Crossings ? Automobiles ? Injury to Guest of Driver ? Contributory Negligence ? Non-suit. Personal Injuries ? Non-suit ? How Judgment Viewed on Appeal. 1. On appeal from a judgment of non-suit every fact which the evidence tends to prove and which is essential to plaintiffs recovery will be treated as proved, and the evidence considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, provided it be not so inherently improbable as to deny it all belief. Same ? Non-suit ? When Proper. 2. A non-suit may be properly entered where, if a verdict for plaintiff were returned, the court would be required to grant a new trial; where plaintiffs own evidence shows that he ought not to recover or where it is unsubstantial, and whether or not there is substantial evidence in support of his case is always a question of law for the court. Same ? Railroad Crossings ? Failure to Give Warning Signals ? Burden of Proof ? Negative Testimony Sufficient, When. 3. The burden of proving that defendant railway companys enginemen on approaching a highway crossing did not sound the locomotive whistle or ring the bell may be sustained by plaintiffs negative testimony, provided the attendant circumstances were such as to have afforded him a reasonable opportunity to hear the warning signals, if given. Same ? Contributory Negligence Shown by Plaintiffs Case ? What Required of Plaintiff. 4. Where, in an action for personal injuries, plaintiffs own case presents evidence which, unexplained, makes out prima facie contributory negligence on his part, he must produce further evidence exculpating him, or he cannot recover. Same ? Automobiles ? Duty of Guest of Driver. 5. The rule that the failure of a driver of an automobile to observe the requirements of section 3842, Revised Codes of 1921, in driving motor vehicles upon the public highway, may not by imputation be made the default of his guest or passenger, does not absolve the latter from taking such precaution for his own safety as under the circumstances are reasonable. Same ? Duty of Motorist in Approaching Railroad Crossing. 6. Though the rule of reasonable care does not ordinarily require a motorist to stop on approaching a railroad crossing, he must look - Page 98 and listen; he is presumed to have seen that which he could have seen by looking, and will not be permitted to say that he did not see what he must have seen had he looked. Same. 7. If a motorists view of a railway track is obscured or factors make the sound of an approaching train inaudible, he must take such precautions as will render sight or hearing effective before moving into a position from which he cannot extricate himself in the event of the near approach of the train. Same ? Railroad Crossings ? Failure of Guest of Automobile Driver to Observe Caution ? Contributory Negligence ? Non-suit. 8. Held, upon a review of the evidence of plaintiff, and under the above rules, that plaintiff who, while riding in an automobile as the guest of the driver, made no effort to stop the driver or cause him to look and listen upon approaching a railway crossing which he knew to be dangerous, but permitted him to proceed carelessly and recklessly, resulting in a collision with a train, was guilty of such contributory negligence as warranted a judgment of non-suit.