[251] Gautret v. Egerton, L. R. 2 C. P. 371; State v. Seawell, 3 Hawks, 193.
[252] Jaquish v. Ithaca, 36 Wis. 108; Ward v. Jefferson, 24 Wis. 342.
[253] Ibid.
CHAPTER VII.
STATIONS AND STARTING.
Meditations on Crossings.—Bell or Whistle.—People on Track.—Access to Stations.—Slippery Ice.—Checks on Trunks.—Notice of Arrivals and Departures.—Trains late as usual.—Must keep Time.—Damages, Damages.—Proof.—Ill fared Welfare.—Waiting-rooms not Smoke-houses.—Charge of the Iron Horse.—Tripped up.
In course of time I had to go off on business, and, notwithstanding the unhappy demise of my wife’s step-mother’s brother’s wife’s mother’s aunt, I resolved to patronize the cars, and having long before settled the insurance question to my own satisfaction, I purchased both a railway and an accident ticket, and as the proper hour for the departure of my train approached, started bag in hand, being minded to go afoot to the station. “As I walked by myself, I talked to myself and myself replied to me, and the questions myself then put to myself with the answers, I give thee,” my would-be-wise reader.
Coming upon the railroad where it ran close to a house which hid the line on one side completely from view, I was rather startled by a freight-train dashing past within a few feet of my nose, and I asked myself: “Should not a bell have been rung?” and I replied: “Yes, wherever a train crosses a highway there the bell should be rung or the whistle sounded;[254] and no engine should have gone at such a speed.” “Should not the company place a watchman at a crossing to warn pedestrians of the approach of trains?” the answer that came was, “I fancy not, for primâ facie, a foot-passenger crossing a railway is bound to look out for his own safety;[255] just as it is his duty to use due care and caution in crossing a street, so as not recklessly to get among the carriages.”[256] There is, it appears, no general duty devolving upon railway companies to place watchmen at such places, but it depends upon the particular circumstances of each individual case as to whether the omission of such a precaution amounts to negligence or not.[257] If, however, one is employed, his neglect of duty will make the company liable.[258]
But then this crossing, I thought, is peculiarly dangerous, the line being hid as it is! In such a case the mere occurrence of an accident to one crossing will be evidence of negligence.[259] If a railroad unnecessarily crosses a highway in such a manner and place that travellers can neither see nor hear an approaching train until too late to save themselves; or if a company erect a building so as to shut off the view, they will be liable for collisions, in the absence of negligence on the part of the injured ones.[260] I remember that once, on a certain foggy morning in the land of fogs, a man took the trouble to look up the line and to look down the line, but owing to the dimness of the light failed to see a train coming; the engine never whistled, the man was injured and the company was found guilty of negligence.[261] Where persons are in the habit of crossing a line at a particular place, though there is no right of way there, still the responsibility of taking reasonable precautions in their use of such place is thrown upon the company.[262]
The omission to give the signals required by statute, such as, ringing the bell or sounding the whistle, constitutes a primâ facie case of negligence; still, to make the company liable for damages, the injury must be the result of the want of the signal, and the onus of showing this will not be upon the company, but upon the plaintiff.[263]
The public has a right to presume that if the proper warnings are not given at a crossing, that the speed of the train will be reduced; if not, to prevent an injured one getting damage it must be proved that he was rash. The company will be liable if he kept a proper lookout, though he was incautious in going on the track.[264]