97 Nebr. 250, 149 NW 792. N. H.-Kambour v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 77 N. H. 33, 86 A 624, 45 LRANS 1188 and note. N. J.-Solomon v. Public Service R. Co., 87 N. J. L. 284, 92 A 942; Fogarty v. Jersey City, etc., St. R. Co., 76 N. J. L. 459, 460, 69 A 964 [cit Cyc]; Barlow V. Jersey City, etc., R. Co., 67 N. J. L. 364, 51 A 463. Pa.-Kirchner v. Oil City St. R. Co., 210 Pa. 45, 59 A 270; Philadelphia City Pass. R. Co. v. Hassard, 75 Pa. 367. Tex.-El Paso Electric R. Co. v. Kitt, (Civ. A.) 90 SW 678, 91 SW 598; Denison, etc., R. Co. v. Carter, (Civ. A.) 79 SW 320 [rev on other Tex. 196, 82 SW grounds 98 782, 107 AmSR 626]. [a] A boy sixteen years of age is ordinarily to be held to the full measure of responsibility for contributory negligence. Benedict y. Minneapolis, etc., R. Co., 86 Minn. 224, 90 NW 360, 91 AmSR 345, 57 LRA 639. [b] Instances of contributory negligence precluding a recovery: (1) Where a boy fifteen years old stands on the platform of a moving electric car, there being room inside, and he being of sufficient intelligence to ride on the same, in going to and from his work. Kirchner v. Oil City St. R. Co., 210 Pa. 45, 59 A 270. (2) Where a boy of twelve years, without invitation, etc., got on the step of the front platform of an electric street car, access to which was barred by a closed door, the method of entering being by a rear door. Barlow v. Jersey City, etc., R. Co., 67 N. J. L. 364, 51 A 463. (3) Where a boy only ten years of age sustains injuries resulting in his death, by protruding his head out of the car window and coming in contact with a standing on a sidetrack. Knauss v. Lake Erie, etc., R. Co., 29 Ind. A. 216, 64 NE 95. (4) Where a minor fifteen years old, and of average intelligence, goes on the lowest step of the car to vomit, while the train is in rapid motion. Cleveland, etc.. R. Co. v. Moneyhun, 146 Ind. 147, 44 NE 1106, 34 LRA 141. car [c] No contributory negligence.It cannot be said to be negligence as a matter of law for a child seven years old, after giving the signal for the street car to stop at the next crossing, to leave his seat as the car approaches the desired crossthe doorway, ing and to stand in preparatory to leaving the car when it should stop at the point indicated for stopping. Dore v. Omaha, etc., R. Co.. 97 Nebr. 250. 149 NW 792. 5212. Wymore v. Mahaska County, 78 Iowa 396, 43 NW 264, 16 AmSR 449, 6 LRA 545; Ploof v. Burlington [1485] 3. Acts in Emergencies. In determining whether the passenger has exercised ordinary care to avoid the injury which he has received as a result of the carrier's negligence, it sometimes becomes a question whether he has been negligent in doing an act which would in itself have been presumptively negligent, but for the circumstances which, it is claimed, justified it in the attempt to escape a threatened injury, such as a collision, and the rule is well established that, if the passenger acts as a reasonably prudent person would have done in view of the danger as it appeared to him, he is not guilty of contributory negligence so as to bar his right of recovery against the carrier, although, if he had not acted thus in the attempt to Tract. Co., 70 Vt. 509, 41 A 1017, 43 LRA 108. See generally Negligence [29 Cyc 553]. . 5213. The Burgundia, 29 Fed. 464; Savage v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 164 Ill. A. 634 (holding that a carrier is not liable for the death of a child who was traveling with his mother, and who was temporarily left by her in the seat of the coach, and who in disobedience of her instructions passed through the door of the coach which had been left open the weather being hot, and went on the platform and fell from the train); Sandifer v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 89 SW 528, 28 KyL 464; Morrison v. Erie R. Co., 56 N. Y. 302; Waite v. North Eastern R. Co., E. B. & E. 719, 96 ECL 719, 120 Reprint 679. See generally Negligence [29 Cyc 556]. 53. See generally Negligence [29 Cyc 534]. 54. Wilcke v. Henrotin, 241 Ill. 169, 89 NE 329. 55. Hughes V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 150 Iowa 232, 129 NW 956; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Payne, 104 SW 752, 31 KyL 1173; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Proctor, 122 Ky. 92, 89 SW 714, 28 KyL 598. But see Sullivan v. Seattle Electric Co., 44 Wash. 53, 86 P 786 (holding that, in an action against a street car company for wrongful death resulting from defendant's alleged negligence in setting down decedent at an unsafe place while he was intoxicated, an instruction assuming that acts which would be negligence if committed by sober persons are also negligence when committed by an intoxicated one was erroneous). 56. U. S.-Trumbull v. Erickson, 97 Fed. 891, 38 CCA 536; Holmes v. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 5 Fed. 523, 6 Sawy. 276. Ark. Midland Valley R. Co. v. Hamilton, 84 Ark. 81, 104 SW 540; Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Davis, 83 Ark. 217, 103 SW 603. Ga.-Central R., etc., Co. v. Phina zee, 93 Ga. 488, 21 SE 66. Ill.- -Wilcke v. Henrotin, 241 Ill. 169, 89 NE 329; Central R. Co. v. Mackey, 103 Ill. A. 15; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Lawrence, 96 Ill. A. 635. Iowa.-Hughes v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 150 Iowa 232, 129 NW 956. Kan.-O'Keefe V. Kansas City Western R. Co., 87 Kan. 322, 124 P 416, 48 LRANS 135. Ky.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Proctor, 122 Ky. 92. 89 SW 714, 28 KyL 598; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Deason, 96 SW 1115, 29 KyL 1259. Me.-Blair v. Lewiston, etc., St. R. Co., 110 Me. 235, 85 A 792. Mass.-Black v. New York, etc., R. Co., 193 Mass. 448. 79 NE 797. 7 LRANS 148. 9 AnnCas 485 and note: Maguire V. Middlesex R. Co., 115 Mass. 239. Mich.-Kingston v. Ft. Wayne, etc., R. Co., 112 Mich. 40, 70 NW 315, 74 NW 230, 40 LRA 131 and note: Strand v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 67 Mich. 380, 34 NW 712. Mo.-Meyer v. Pacific R. Co., 40 Mo. 151. N. H.-Wheeler v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 70 N. H. 607, 50 A 103. N. Y.-Newton v. Central Vermont R. Co., 80 Hun 491. 30 NYS 488 [aff 151 N. Y. 624 mem, 45 NE 1133 mem]; Milliman v. New York Cent., etc.. R. Co., 6 Thomps. & C. 585 [aff 66 N. Y. 642 mem]. Tex.-Texas, etc.. R. Co. V. Edmond, (Civ. A.) 29 SW 518. Wash.-Rangenier v. Seattle Electric Co., 52 Wash. 401, 100 P 812; Lawson v. Seattle, etc., R. Co. 34 Wash. 500, 76 P 71. W. Va.-Fisher v. West Virginia, etc., R. Co., 39 W. Va. 366, 19 SE 578, 23 LRA 758, 42 W. Va. 183, 24 SE 570, 33 LRA 69. [a] Acceptance with knowledge of condition.(1) Where a carrier accepts an unattended passenger who is so drunk as to be unable to take care of himself, and it has knowledge of such condition when it accepts him as a passenger, the question of contributory negligence cannot arise when he is injured. Price v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 75 Ark. 479, 88 SW 575, 112 AmSR 79. (2) Where a carrier abandoned a passenger at a dangerous place on its platform while the passenger was in such a state of intoxication as to be incapable of caring for himself, the question of contributory negligence is not involved. O'Rourke v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 183 Ill. A. 593. [b] Degree of intoxication. To prevent the intoxication of a passenger, resulting in injuries, from being contributory negligence barring recovery, the intoxication must have rendered incapable of protecting himself from the passenger mentally or physically danger or of appreciating his danger. which condition must be known to the carrier's agent whose negligence is alleged to have caused the injury. Paris, etc., R. Co. v. Robinson, 104 Tex. 482, 140 SW 434. 57. U. S.-Trumbull v. Erickson, 97 Fed. 891, 38 CCA 536; Holmes v. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 5 Fed. 75, 6 Sawy. 262. Ark. Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Davis, 83 Ark. 217, 103 SW 603. Ill-Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Lawrence, 96 Ill. A. 635. Co. V. Iowa.-Hughes v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.. 150 Iowa 232, 129 NW 956. Ky.-Louisville, etc., R. Payne, 104 SW 752, 31 KyL 1173. Mass.-Black v. New York, etc., R. Co., 193 Mass. 448, 79 NE 797, 7 LRA NS 148. 9 AnnCas 485; Maguire v. Middlesex R. Co., 115 Mass. 239. Mich. Strand v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 67 Mich. 380, 34 NW 712. avoid injury, he would have been safe.58 The same rule is applicable to the failure of the passenger to attempt to escape threatened injury.59 The danger need only be apparent in order to relieve the passenger from the charge of contributory negligence, Mo.-Whalen v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 60 Mo. 323. N. Y.-Milliman v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 6 Thomps. & C. 585 [aff 66 N. Y. 642 mem]. Tex.-Houston, etc., R. Co. V. Bryant, 31 Tex. Civ. A. 483, 72 SW 885. Wash.-Rangenier v. Seattle Electric Co., 52 Wash. 401, 100 P 842. 58. Ú. S.-National L. Ins. Co. v. McKenna, 226 Fed. 165; Shankenberry v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 46 Fed. 177; Ladd v. Foster, 31 Fed. 827, 12 Sawy. 547; Stokes v. Saltonstall, 13 Pet. 181, 10 L. ed. 115. Ala.-Selma St., etc., R. Co. V. Owen, 132 Ala. 420, 31 S 598. Ark.-Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Watson, 102 Ark. 499, 144 SW 922; Prescott, etc., R. Co. v. Morris, 92 Ark. 365, 123 SW 392. Cal.-Green v. Pacific Lumber Co., 130 Cal. 435, 62 P 747; Mitchell v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 87 Cal. 62, 25 P 245, 11 LRA 130; Lawrence V. Green, 70 Cal. 417, 11 P 750, 59 AmR 428; Waniorek V. San Francisco United R. Co., 17 Cal. A. 121, 118 P 947. Colo.-Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Pickard, 8 Colo. 163, 6 P 149. D. C.-Georgetown, etc., R. Co. v. Smith, 25 App. 259, 5 LRANS 274 and note; Kight v. Metropolitan R. Co., 21 App. 494. Ga.-Georgia R., etc., Co. v. McAllister, 126 Ga. 447, 54 SE 957, 7 LRANS 1177; Pacetti v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 6 Ga. A. 97, 64 SE 302. Ill. Chicago Union Tract. Co. v. Newmiller, 215 Ill. 383, 74 NE 410 [aff 116 Ill. A. 625] (an attempt to escape from a car in a panic caused by the explosion in a controller box); Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Storment, 190 Ill. 42, 60 NE 104 [aff 90 Ill. A. 505]; Galena, etc., R. Co. v. Yarwood, 17 Ill. 509, 65 AmD 682; Frink v. Potter, 17 Ill. 406; Smith v. Chicago City R. Co., 169 Ill. A. 570; Wayne v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 165 Ill. A. 353; Benner Livery, etc., Co. v. Busson, 58 Ill. A. 17; Mobile, etc., R. Co. v. Klein, 43 Ill. A. 63; North Chicago St. R. Co. v. Louis, 35 Ill. A. 477 [rev on other grounds 138 Ill. 9, 27 NE 451]. Ind.-Indiana R. Co. v. Maurer, 160 Ind. 25, 66 NE 156; Woolery v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 107 Ind. 381, 8 NE 226, 57 AmR 114; Louisville, etc., Tract. Co. v. Worrell, 44 Ind. A. 480, 86 NE 78. Iowa.-Burger v. Omaha, etc., R. Co., 139 Iowa 645, 117 NW 35, 130 AmSR 343; Kellow v. Central Iowa R. Co., 68 Iowa 470. 23 NW 740, 27 NW 466, 56 AmR 858. Ky.-South Covington, etc., R. Co. v. Crutcher, 135 Ky. 698, 123 SW 268; South Covington, etc., St. R. Co. v. Ware, 84 Ky. 267, 1 SW 493, 8 KyL 241; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Cecil, 9 KyL 402. La.-Chretien v. New Orleans R. Co., 113 La. 761, 37 S 716, 104 AmSR 519; Holzab v. New Orleans, etc., R. Co., 38 La. Ann. 185. Md.-United R., etc., Co. v. Beidelman, 95 Md. 480, 52 A 913. Mass.-Steverman v. Boston El. R. Co., 205 Mass. 508, 91 NE 919 (female passenger jumping to escape danger from an explosion); Cody v. New York, etc., R. Co., 151 Mass. 462, 24 NE 402, 7 LRA 843; Caswell v. Boston, etc.. R. Corp.. 98 Mass. 194, 93 AmD 151. Mich. Ashton v. Detroit City R. Co.. 78 Mich. 587, 44 NW 141. Minn. Wilson v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 26 Minn. 278, 3 NW 333, 37 AmR 410. Mo.-Williamson v. St. Louis Transit Co., 202 Mo. 345. 100 SW 1072; Sweeney v. Kansas City Cable R. Co., 60 but the appearances must be such as would reasonably cause alarm to a person of ordinary prudence under the same circumstances. It will not be sufficient that the passenger became alarmed by reason of appearances produced wholly or in part by the 150 Mo. 385, 51 SW 682; Chitty v. Nebr. St. Joseph, etc., R. Co. v. N. Y.-Twomley v. Central Park, N. C.-Fulghum v. Atlantic Coast Oh.-Iron R. Co. v. Mowery, 36 Oh. Pa.-Palmer v. Warren St. R. Co., Tex.-Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Boyd, Va.-Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Mc- Wash.-Firebaugh v. Seatle Elec- W. Va.-Dimmey v. Wheeling, etc., Wis.-Wanzer v. Chippewa Valley Eng. Adams v. Lancashire, etc., R. "The emergency in which one is [a] Circumstances in determining [b] Failure to warn carrier of discovered danger.-(1) It has been held that a passenger who sees a train on an intersecting road approaching a crossing is not guilty of contributory negligence because he fails to pull the bell rope and warn the engineer in charge of the train on which he is riding. Grand Rapids, etc., R. Co. v. Ellison, 117 Ind. 234, 236, 20 NE 135 (where the court said: "The appellee was not bound to do this. As a passenger it was no part of his province to interfere in any way in the management of the train"). (2) The failure of a passenger who was inexperienced in traveling to call the attention of the company's employees to the cold condition of the car will not preclude a recovery, but its effect as bearing on the question of contributory negligence should be left to the jury to be determined from all the circumstances of the case. Hastings v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 53 Fed. 224. (3) A passenger who was injured by jumping from a moving street car which was about to be run over by a locomotive was under no duty to notify the driver that she wished to alight. Selma St., etc., R. Co. v. Owen, 132 Ala. 420, 31 S 598. [c] Attempting to regain a position on the car, when a street car is started while the passenger is about to step to the ground, is not negligence. Brazis v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo. A. 224, 76 SW 708. [d] Error of judgment. That plaintiff did not exercise the best judgment in resisting an assault by the conductor of a street car does not of itself show contributory negligence. Braly v. Fresno City R. Co., 9 Cal. A. 417, 99 P 400. [e] Stampede of passengers.— Where, following an explosion in an electric car, caused by the blowing out of a fuse box, there is a stampede of the passengers, resulting in one of them, a woman, jumping or being pushed from the car, she cannot be said to have been guilty of contributory negligence precluding a recovery for injuries SO received. Kight v. Metropolitan R. Co., 21 App. (D. C.) 494. [f] Catching hold of running board. Where an old and infirm passenger was thrown down by the premature starting of a street car, and in the fall caught hold of the running board of the car and was dragged a considerable distance, his act in so doing, having been under an impulse created by a sudden danger, did not constitute contributory negligence. Indiana R. Co. v. Maurer, 160 Ind. 25, 66 NE 156. 59. Montgomery V. Colorado Springs, etc., R. Co., 50 Colo. 210, 114 P 659; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Kelley, 4 Colo. A. 325, 35 P 923. the [a] Thus, where a carrier's negligence in starting a car places an alighting woman passenger in a position of danger, it cannot complain of her contributory negligence on ground of her error of judgment in the emergency in retaining hold of a child accompanying her, who was on the car, instead of letting go of the child, and taking hold of the car. Montgomery V. Colorado Springs, etc., R. Co., 50 Colo. 210, 114 P 659. 60. Selma St., etc., R. Co. v. Owen, 132 Ala. 420, 31 S 598; Moore v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 189 Mo. A. 555, 176 SW 1120. See also cases supra notes 58, 59. [a] "The test of the carrier's liability in such cases is not whether there was actual peril but whether there was an appearance of imminent danger that reasonably should have been anticipated as too terrifying for an ordinary passenger to face without danger of being seized by uncontrollable and injurious alarm.' Moore v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 189 Mo. A. 555. 563. 176 SW 1120. 61 62 carrier, if these appearances were not such as reasonably to cause alarm; and it is also necessary that the alarm arise from the carrier's negligence. Alighting from moving car to avoid impending danger. Where a passenger, as the result of the misconduct or negligence of the carrier, is placed in such a perilous position as to render his jumping from a moving car or coach, as the case may be, an act of reasonable precaution, such as to avoid an apparent collision or overturning, and he leaps therefrom and thereby sustains an injury, he is not guilty of contributory negligence, and the car to leave a moving street car which apparently was about to collide with a locomotive, the fact that the danger was only apparent did not make her action in leaving the car amount to contributory negligence. Selma St., etc., R. Co. v. Owen, 132 Ala. 420, 31 S 598. 61. Ala.-Alabama City, etc., R. Co. v. Bates, 149 Ala. 487, 43 S 98. Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Murray, 55 Ark. 248, 18 SW 50, 29 AmSR 32, 16 LRA 787. Ill-Galena, etc., R. Co. v. Yarwood, 15 Ill. 468, 17 Ill. 509, 65 AmD 682. Ind.-Woolery v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 107 Ind. 381, 8 NE 226, 57 AmR 114. Iowa.-Burger v. Omaha, etc., R. Co., 139 Iowa 645, 117 NW 35, 130 AmSR 343. La. Marsalis v. Louisiana, etc., R. Co., 129 La. 146, 55 S 744; Chretien v. New Orleans R. Co., 113 La. 761, 37 S 716, 104 AmSR 519; Reary v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 40 La. Ann. 32, 3 S 390, 8 AmSR 497. Md. Western Maryland R. Co. v. Herold, 74 Md. 510, 22 A 323, 14 LRA 75. Mich.-Youmans v. Padden, 1 Mich. N. P. 127. Mo.-Chitty v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 148 Mo. 64, 49 SW 868. N. Y.-Schoenfeld v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 40 Misc. 201, 81 NYS 644. Or.-Budd v. United Carriage Co., 25 Or. 314, 35 P 660, 27 LRA 279. [a] In determining the nature of the danger as apparent to the passenger, the direction of those in charge of the conveyance as to what the passenger should do may be taken into account. St. Louis, etc.. R. Co. v. Murray, 55 Ark. 248, 18 SW 50, 29 AmSR 32, 16 LRA 787; Budd v. United Carriage Co., 25 Or. 314, 35 P 660, 27 LRA 279. [b] In the sudden and unexpected starting of a street car (1) while a passenger is attempting to board, there is presented an emergency, an "emergency" being a sudden or unexpected happening or occasion calling for immediate action. Burger v. Omaha, etc., R. Co., 139 Iowa 645, 117 NW 35, 130 AmSR 343. (2) It cannot be held, as a matter of law, that it is contributory negligence for a passenger to hold on to the hand rail of a street car which had been started while the passenger was getting on, and thus to be dragged along. Schoenfeld V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 40 Misc. 201, 81 NYS 644. [c] A passenger must have believed the danger to be imminent in order to obtain damages, where he attempted to escape therefrom, it appearing that he would not have been injured if no attempt to escape had been made. Chitty v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 148 Mo. 64. 49 SW 868. 62. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Felton, 125 Ill. 458, 17 NE 765; Adamson v. Norfolk. etc.. Tract. Co., 111 Va. 556, 69 SE 1055. See also cases supra note 61. was [a] Thus, in one case it was shown that a peculiar signal given by an engine of the carrier, and that the passenger was frightened thereby and in consequence thereof left the car on which he had taken passage and ran on another track, where he was injured. It was held that the giving of a signal by the whistle of an engine may be proper under certain circumstances, and it not appearing affirmatively in this case that the carrier was negligent in giving it, no recovery could be had for the injury. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Felton, 125 Ill. 458, 17 NE 765. 63. Ú. S.-Stokes v. Saltonstall, 13 Pet. 181, 10 L. ed. 115. Ala.-Selma St.. etc., R. Co. V. Owen, 132 Ala. 420, 31 S 598 (jumping to avoid apparent collision). Ark. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Maddry, 57 Ark. 306, 21 SW 472; St. Louis, etc.., R. Co. v. Murray, 55 Ark. 248, 18 SW 50, 29 AmSR 32, 16 LRA 787. Cal-Waniorek v. San Francisco United R. Co., 17 Cal. A. 121, 118 P 947; Dinnigan v. Peterson, 3 Cal. A. 764, 87 P 218 (jumping from tipping stagecoach). Colo.-Denver, etc., R. Co. v. Pickard, 8 Colo. 163; 6 P 149. City Del.-Eaton V. Wilmington R. Co., 24 Del. 435, 75 A 369. D. C. -Washington, etc., R. Co. v. Hickey, 5 App. 436. Ga.- South Western R. Co. V. Paulk, 24 Ga. 356. Ill-West Chicago St. R. Co. V. Lyon, 57 Ill. A. 536 [aff 157 Ill. 593, 42 NE 55]. Ky-Palmer Transfer Co. v. Long, 140 Ky. 111, 130 SW 961 (jumping from a vehicle drawn by runaway horses); Big Sandy, etc., R. Co. v. Blankenship. 133 Ky. 438, 118 SW 315, 23 LRANS 345, 19 AnnCas 264. Md.-Western Maryland R. Co. v. State, 95 Md. 637, 53 A 969. Mass.-Ingalls V. Bills, 9 Metc. 1, 43 AmD 346 and note. Mich.-Howell V. Lansing City Electric R. Co., 136 Mich. 432, 99 NW 406 (jumping from a car to escape a collision). Minn.-Wilson v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 26 Minn. 278, 3 NW 333, 37 AmR 410. Mo.-White v. Brickey, 156 Mo. A. 278, 137 SW 627; McManus v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 116 Mo. A. 110, 92 SW 176; Dimmitt v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 40 Mo. A. 654. N. Y.-Twomley v. Central Park, etc., R. Co., 69 N. Y. 158, 25 AmR 162; Buel v. New York Cent. R. Co., 31 N. Y. 314, 88 AmD 271. Pa.-Lehner v. Pittsburg R. Co., 223 Pa. 208, 72 A 525, 132 AmSR 729, 16 AnnCas 83 and note; Willis v. Second Ave. Tract. Co., 189 Pa. 430, 42 A 1; Pennsylvania R. Co. V. Lyons, 129 Pa. 113, 18 A 759, 15 Am SR 701: Pennsylvania R. Co. V. Aspell, 23 Pa. 147, 62 AmD 323. S. C.-Wade v. Columbia Electric, etc., Co., 51 S. C. 296, 29 SE 233, 64 AmSR 676. N. S.-Shea v. Halifax, etc., R. Co., 47 N. S. 366. [a] Applications of rule.-(1) A passenger on a street car is not guilty of contributory negligence in jumping from the car when it is running rapidly down a dangerous grade (Lehner v. Pittsburgh R. Co., 223 Pa. 208, 72 A 525, 132 AmSR 729, 16 AnnCas 83), (2) or from a car which is beyond the motorman's con 65 trol (Eaton v. Wilmington City R. Co., 24 Del. 435, 75 A 369), (3) or which has broken through the safety gates at a railroad crossing (Willis v. Second Ave. Tract. Co., 189 Pa. 430, 42 A 1). (4) The fact that a passenger in a wagonette, injured in getting out while the horses were | running away with one line broken, would not have been injured had he retained his seat will not prevent recovery, if getting out was the act of an ordinarily prudent and careful man in the same situation and circumstances. White v. Brickey, 156 Mo. A. 278, 137 SW 627. 64. Galena, etc., R. Co. v. Yarwood, 15 Ill. 468, 17 Ill. 509, 65 AmD 682; Woolery v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 107 Ind. 381, 8 NE 226, 57 AmR 114; Reary v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 40 La. Ann. 32, 3 S 390, 8 AmSR 497; Western Maryland R. Co. v. Herold, 74 Md. 510, 22 A 323, 14 LRA 75. [a] Passenger on freight train frightened by falling lumber.-Where a passenger leaps out of a car attached to the rear of a freight train, on becoming alarmed by the noise and confusion made by reason of lumber falling from a car in advance and being blown against the passenger car, when there is no reasonable cause to apprehend danger to life or limb, there can be no recovery if he is killed by leaping, although it may have been negligence in the company to load the lumber so that it would fall off. Woolery v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 107 Ind. 381, 8 NE 226, 57 AmR 114. Alighting from moving train or car as contributory negligence generally see infra §§ 1501-1506. 65. Kroeger V. Seattle Electric Co., 37 Wash. 544, 79 P 1115; Gee v. Metropolitan R. Co., L. R. 8 Q. B. 161; Adams v. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., L. R. 4 C. P. 739. [a] Illustration.-The door of a carriage compartment in which plaintiff was being carried as a passenger on defendant's railroad flew open several times through the negligence of defendant. There was room in the carriage for plaintiff to sit away from the door, and the train would have stopped at a station in three minutes. Plaintiff shut the door three times. The door opened a fourth time, and in endeavoring to shut it again plaintiff fell out and was hurt. It was held that as the inconvenience that plaintiff would have suffered if he had not shut the door was slight, and the peril incurred in his attempt to shut it considerable, the injury suffered was not the necessary or natural result of the company's negligence, and they were therefore not liable for such injury. Adams v. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., L. R. 4 C. P. 739. 66. Western Maryland R. Co. v. Stanley, 61 Md. 266, 48 AmR 96; Adams v. Lancashire, etc., R. Co., L. R. 4 C. P. 739. [a] Thus, where a passenger sitting close to the front door of a crowded car when passing through a tunnel attempted to shut the door while the car was in total darkness, in order to keep out the smoke and cinders, and in so doing was injured, the court properly refused to in [§ 1487] 5. Violations of Regulations or Directions.67 It will in general constitute negligence on the part of a passenger to violate the reasonable regulations made by the carrier with reference to the safety of passengers, and for an injury resulting from such violation he cannot recover, although the injury is attributable in part to the negligence of the carrier." But in order to charge a passenger with contributory negligence for such a violation, he must have had notice of the rule or regulation at the time, or must have been charged with notice 68 struct the jury that plaintiff was chargeable with contributory negligence. Western Maryland R. Co. v. Stanley, 61 Md. 266, 48 AmR 96. 67. Cross references: Acts by permission or direction of employees see infra § 1488. Disobedience of rules as ground for ejection see supra §§ 1167-1171. Duty to obey regulations see supra § 1073. 68. Ala.-McCauley v. Tennessee Coal, etc., Co., 93 Ala. 356, 9 S 611; Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Hawks, 72 Ala. 112. Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Harmon, 85 Ark. 503, 109 SW 295; Abelson v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 84 Ark. 181, 105 SW 81. Cal.-Mitchell v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 87 Cal. 62, 25 P 245, 11 LRA 130. Ill.-Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. V. Kelsey, 180 Ill. 530, 54 NE 608 [aff 76 Ill. A. 613]; Kerr v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 100 II. A. 148; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Rielly, 40 III. A. 416. Iowa.-Oaks v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 156 NW 740; McDonald v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 26 Iowa 124, 96 AmD 114. Md.-Baltimore Cons. R. Co. V. Foreman, 94 Md. 226, 51 A 83; State v. Lake Roland El. R. Co., 84 Md. 163, 34 A 1130; Baltimore, etc., Turnp. Road v. Cason, 72 Md. 377, 20 A 113; Baltimore, etc., Turnp. Road Co. v. Leonhardt, 66 Md. 70, 5 A 346. Mass.-Renaud v. New York, etc., R. Co.. 210 Mass. 553, 97 NE 98, 38 LRANS 689; Pike v. Boston El. R. Co., 192 Mass. 426, 78 NE 497: McDonough v. Boston El. R. Co., 191 Mass. 509, 78 NE 141; Burns v. Boston El. R. Co., 183 Mass. 96, 66 NE 418; Sweetland v. Lynn, etc., R. Co., 177 Mass. 574, 59 NE 443, 51 LRA 783. Mich.-Perego v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 158 Mich. 225, 122 NW 535; Boisen v. Cobbs, 147 Mich. 429, 111 NW 82. Mo.-Sherman v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 72 Mo. 62, 37 AmR 423; Higgins v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 36 Mo. 418. N. C.-Shaw v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 143 N. C. 312, 322, 55 SE 713 [quot Cycl]; Malcolm v. Richmond, etc., R. Co., 106 N. C. 63, 11 SE 187. Oh.-Cincinnati, etc.. R. Co. V. Lake, 68 Oh. St. 101, 67 NE 161, 67 LRA 637. Pa-Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Langdon, 92 Pa. 21, 37 AmR 651. Tex.-Missouri, etc.. R. Co. v. Avis, 100 Tex. 33, 93 SW 424; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 49 Tex. 31. Va.-Virginia Midland R. Co. V. Roach, 83 Va. 375, 5 SE 175. W. Va.-Downey V. Chesapeake, etc., R. Co., 28 W. Va. 732. [a] Rules contained in contract for transportation.-Where plaintiff's intestate was riding on defendant's freight train under a contract for the transportation of stock, it was his duty to comply with the rules and regulations contained in his contract. Oaks v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., (Iowa) 156 NW 740. 69. Ala.-Armstrong V. Montgomery St. R. Co., 123 Ala. 233, 26 S 349. Ark.-Abelson v. R. Co., 84 Ark. 181, 105 SW 81. Ill.-Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. V. Kelsey, 180 Ill. 530, 54 NE 608 [aff 76 II. A. 613]; Coburn v. Moline, etc., R. Co., 149 Ill. A. 132 [aff 243 111. 620. 90 NE 741]. Ind.-Ft. Wayne Tract. Co. V. Hardendorf, 164 Ind. 403, 72 NE 593. Iowa.-McDonald v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 26 Iowa 124, 95 AmD 114. La. Hanson v. Mansfield R., etc., Co., 38 La. Ann. 111, 58 AmR 162. Md.-Western Maryland R. Co. v. Herold, 74 Md. 510, 22 A 323, 14 LRA 75. Mass.-Renaud v. New York, etc.. R. Co., 210 Mass. 553, 97 NE 98, 38 LRANS 689; Cutts v. Boston El. R. Co., 202 Mass. 450, 89 NE 21; Tompkins v. Boston El. R. Co., 201 Mass. 114, 87 NE 488, 131 AmSR 392, 20 LRANS 1063; Pike v. Boston El. R. Co., 192 Mass. 426, 78 NE 497 (notice on car); McDonough v. Boston El. R. Co., 191 Mass. 509, 78 NE 141. Mo.-Speaks v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 179 Mo. A. 311, 166 SW 864. N. J.-New York, etc., R. Co. v. Ball, 53 N. J. L. 283 21 A 1052. N. Y.-Colegrove v. New York, etc., R. Co., 13 N. Y. Super. 382 [aff 20 N. Y. 492, 75 AmD 418]. Or.-Gray v. Columbia Cent. R. Co., 49 Or. 18, 88 P 297 (ignorance of a rule against passengers riding on freight cars). Pa.-Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Langdon, 92 Pa. 21, 37 AmR 651. Tex.-Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Clemmons, 55 Tex. 88, 40 AmR 799. Va.-Virginia Midland R. Co. V. Roach, 83 Va. 375, 5 SE 175. Ont.-Watson v. Northern R. Co., 24 U. C. Q. B. 98 (riding in baggage car). [a] A passenger is not bound to use diligence to ascertain the company's rules. Coburn v. Moline, etc., R. Co. 243 Ill. 448, 90 NE 741, 134 AmSR 377. [b] The public are charged with notice of conspicuous warnings maintained by a street railroad company at an elevated station without proof of actual knowledge. Speaks V. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 179 Mo. A. 311, 166 SW 864. time acting in violation of a rule of the company, he will be presumed to have knowledge of such rule where it is shown that he had previously been in the employment of the carrier. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Langdon, 92 Pa. 21, 37 AmR 651; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Clemmons, 55 Tex. 88, 40 AmR 799; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 49 Tex. 31; Virginia Midland R. Co. v. Roach, 83 Va. 375, 5 SE 175. Notice of regulations generally see supra 1072. 70. U. S.-Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Lowell, 151 U. S. 209, 14 SCt 281, 38 L. ed. 131. Fla. Florida East Coast R. Co. v. Carter, 67 Fla. 335, 65 S 254, AnnCas 1916E 1299. Ill. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Dickson, 143 Ill. 368, 32 NE 380; Coburn v. Moline, etc., R. Co., 149 Ill. A. 132 [aff 243 Ill. 448. 90 NE 741]. Mass.-Sweetland v. Lynn, etc., R. Co., 177 Mass. 574, 59 NE 443, 51 LRA 783. Minn. Jones v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 43 Minn. 279, 45 NW 444. Mo.-Whitehead v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 22 Mo. A. 60.. S. D.-Heumphreus V. Fremont, etc., R. Co., 8 S. D. 103, 65 NW 466. Tex.-St. Louis Southwestern, etc., R. Co. v. Morgan, 44 Tex. Civ. A. 155, 98 SW 408; San Antonio, etc., R. Co. v. Lynch, (Civ. A.) 55 SW 517; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Norris, (Civ. A.) 41 SW 708. [a] Acts not constituting waiver. -The carrier may be exempt from liability for an injury resulting from the passenger's violation of a regulation if reasonable efforts had been used to enforce such regulation, and to prevent its violation, although it had been occasionally, or even frequently, disregarded. Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Norris, (Tex. Civ. A.) 41 SW 708. [b] An act of the carrier's em [c] Regulations in the form of instructions to trainmen are not bind-ployees in violation of a regulation ing on a passenger, if not known to him. Harley v. Aurora, etc., R. Co., 182 Ill. A. 643. [d] Insufficient notice.-(1) A notice on a street car that "no one is permitted to get off or on when the car is in motion," and that "cars stop to take on and let off passengers at near sides of cross streets,' is not sufficient to constitute a notice that the car stopped only at near sides of cross streets so as to render it negligent per se for a passenger to attempt to get off elsewhere. United R., etc., Co. v. Hertel, 97 Md. 382, 55 A 428. (2) Where a street railroad company posted a notice containing the rule that "all persons entering or leaving this car while it is in motion or by the front platform do so at their own risk" on the outside of the car, below the windows opening on to the platforms, and the rule was set out in the two lower lines of the notice which in all consisted of five lines, and was at a height, above the floor, between the knee and the waist of an ordinary man, and would not be seen by a passenger who went immediately into the car, but only by a passenger on the platform, and as to him it would be partly hidden by the gate when shut across it, and by passengers standing in front of it, the rule was not properly posted. Cutts v. Boston El. R. Co., 202 Mass. 450, 89 NE 211. [e] Knowledge presumed from former employment.-Where a passenger receiving an injury was at the cannot be relied on as waiver thereof. Whitehead v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 22 Mo. A. 60. [c] General violation or disregard of rule.-(1) Although a carrier had a rule prohibiting the carriage of passengers on its freight trains without special authority, where plaintiff did not know of such rule, and was on the train by consent of the conductor, and the company knew, or should have known, that this rule was generally violated and did not object, it was liable for his negligent injury. St. Louis Southwestern Co. v. Morgan, 44 Tex. Civ. A. 155, 98 SW 408. (2) Commonly, an issue as to whether a rule forbidding the carrying of passengers on freight trains had been so generally disregarded that the public had the right to conclude that it had been abrogated can be determined only by inquiring as to the practice generally, and not at any particular time. Houston, etc.. R. Co. v. Norris, (Tex. Civ. A.) 41 SW 708. Waiver or abrogation of rules generally see supra § 1074. 71. U. S.-Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Myers, 80 Fed. 361, 25 CCA 486. Cal.-Campbell v. Los Angeles R. Co.. 135 Cal. 137, 67 P 50. Ga.-Central of Georgia R. Co. v. McKinney, 118 Ga. 535, 45 SE 430. Ill. Harvey v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 221 11. 242. 77 NE 569 [aff 116 Ill. A. 507, 123 Ill. A. 442]; Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Schiebe, 44 I11. 460; Raymond v. Chicago, etc, R. Co., 126 II. [ 1488] 6. Acts by Permission or Direction of Employees." Where a passenger acts in conformity to a permission or direction given by a conductor A. 240. To same effect Barnes v. Danville St. R., etc., Co.. 235 Ill. 566, 85 NE 921, 126 AmSR 237. Ind.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Bisch, 120 Ind. 549, 22 NE 662; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kelly, 92 Ind. 371, 47 AmR 149. Iowa. Blake v. Burlington, etc., R. Co., 78 Iowa 57, 42 NW 580. Mass.-Dodge v. Boston, etc., SS. Co., 148 Mass. 207, 19 NE 373, 12 AmSR 541, 2 LRA 83. Mich. Nieboer v. Detroit Electric R. Co., 128 Mich. 486, 87 NW 626. Minn.-Rolette v. Great Northern R. Co., 91 Minn. 16, 97 NW 431, 1 Ann Cas 313. Mo.-Fulks v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 111 Mo. 335, 19 SW 818. N. C.-Tillett v. Lynchburg, etc., R. Co., 115 N. C. 662, 20 SE 480. Or.-Davis v. Oregon, etc., R. Co., 8 Or. 172. Pa.-Rager v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 229 Pa. 335, 78 A 827; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Aspell, 23 Pa. 147, 62 AmD 323. Wash.-White v. Peninsular R. Co., 20 Wash. 132, 54 P 999. W. Va.-Fisher v. West Virginia, etc., R. Co., 42 W. Va. 183, 24 SE 570, 33 LRA 69. Wis.-Jewell v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 54 Wis. 610, 12 NW 83, 41 ÁmR 63. [a] Thus, a person who disregards warnings, and proceeds out of the regular way to reach a station platform for the purpose of taking a train there, and is injured while crossing the tracks of the carrier on the right of way beyond the public street, is not entitled to Raymond v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 126 Ill. A. 240. recover. Co3. Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Bean, 9 Ind. A. 240. 36 NE 443. 74. Lynn v. Southern Pac. Co., 103 Cal. 7, 36 P 1018, 24 LRA 710; Walter v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 39 Iowa 33; Wertheimer V. Interborough Rapid Transit Co., 52 Misc. 540, 102 NYS 706; Elliott v. Newport St. R. Co., 18 R. I. 707, 28 A 338, 31 A 694, 23 LRA 208. 75. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Johnson, 180 111. 285, 54 NE 334 [aff 77 Ill. A. 142]; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Sandusky, 14 KyL 767; Detroit, etc., R. Co. v. Curtis, 23 Wis. 152, 99 AmD 141. [a] Occupying car not assigned.A passenger has the right to occupy a car other than that to which he has been assigned, or in which he has taken a berth, and he is not guilty of contributory negligence in SO doing. Illinois Cent. R. Co. V. Sandusky, 14 KyL 767. [b] Request to stand back.-In an action by a passenger on a grip car for injuries caused by sudden flying back of a brake lever, his failure to obey the gripman's request to stand back was not negligence per se, where the car was crowded, and he was not informed of the danger. West Chicago St. R. Co. v. Johnson, or other agent of the carrier, acting within the scope of his employment, and such conduct on his part will not expose him to a known or apparent danger which a prudent man would not incur, he will not be guilty of contributory negligence, although his conduct may result in bringing injury on him.78 Misdirections by persons in charge of a train as to the proper place for passengers to get off will render the carrier liable to one who, acting in reasonable reliance on the directions given, is injured.79 Getting on or off moving train. An illustration 180 Ill. 285, 54 NE 334 [aff 77 Ill. A. 142]. 76. Aufdenberg v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 132 Mo. 565, 34 SW 485; Sherman v. Hannibal, etc., R. Co., 72 Mo. 62, 37 AmR 423. 77. Riding on platform see infra §§ 1513, 1514. 78. U. S.-Ralph v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 216 Fed. 744, 132 CCA 654; Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Dupont, 128 Fed. 840, 64 CCA 478; Third Ave. R. Co. v. Barton, 107 Fed. 215, 46 CCA 241, 52 LRA 471; New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Thomas, 60 Fed. 379, 9 CCA 29. Ala.-Highland Ave., etc., R. Co. v. Winn, 93 Ala. 306, 9 S 509. Ark.-St. Louis, etc., R. Co. V. Baker, 67 Ark. 531, 55 SW 941. Ill. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Winters, 175 Ill. 293, 51 NE 901 [aff 65 Ill. A. 435]; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Rayburn, 153 Ill. 290, 38 NE 558; Hannibal, etc., R. Co. v. Martin, 111 Ill. 219; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Koehler, 47 Ill. A. 147. Ind.-Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. Sheeks, 155 Ind. 74, 56 NE 434; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cheek, 152 Ind. 663, 53 NE 641; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Bisch, 120 Ind. 549, 22 NE 662; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Wood, 113 Ind. 544, 14 NE 572, 16 NE 197; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Kelly, 92 Ind. 371, 47 AmR 149; Terre Haute Tract., etc., Co. v. Payne, 45 Ind. A. 132, 89 NE 413. Iowa.-Dieckman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 145 Iowa 250, 121 NW 676, 139 AmSR 420, 31 LRÁNS 338; Dieckman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 105 NW 526. Kan.-Leslie v. Atchison, etc., R. Co., 82 Kan. 152, 107 P 765, 27 LRA NS 646; Walker v. Green, 60 Kan. 289, 56 P 477. Ky.-Louisville, Smith, 13 KyL 974. etc., R. Co. V. La. Hanson v. Mansfield R., etc., Co., 38 La. Ann. 111, 58 AmR 162. Mass.-Roberts v. New York, etc., R. Co., 175 Mass. 296, 56 NE 559. Mich. Clinton v. Root, 58 Mich. 182, 24 NW 667, 55 AmR 671. Minn.-Olson v. St. Paul, etc., R. Co., 45 Minn. 536, 48 NW 445, 22 Am SR 749. Mo.-Austin v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 149 Mo. A. 397, 130 SW 385. Nebr.-Boesen v. Omaha St. R. Co., 79 Nebr. 381, 112 NW 614. N. Y.-Lent v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 120 N. Y. 467, 24 NE 653; O'Brien v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 109 App. Div. 833, 96 NYS 857; De Rozas v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 13 App. Div. 296. 43 NYS 27; Carroll v. New York, etc., R. Co., 8 N. Y. Super. 571. N. C.-Owens V. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 152 N. C. 439, 67 SE 993. Oh.-Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. V. Krouse, 30 Oh. St. 222. Or.-Gray v. Columbia Cent. R. Co., 49 Or. 18, 88 P 297. Pa.-Hartzig v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 154 Pa. 364, 26 A 310; O'Donnell V. Allegheny Valley R. Co., 59 Pa. 239, 98 AmD 336; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. McCloskey, 23 Pa. 526; Hanover Junction, etc., R. Co. v. Anthony, 3 Walk. 210. S. C.-Cooper v. Georgia, etc., R. Co., 56 S. C. 91, 34 SE 16. Tenn.-Washburn V. Nashville, etc.. R. Co., 3 Head 638, 75 AmD 784. Tex.-Gibson v. St. Louis, etc., R. V. Wheeling W. Va.-Killmyer Tract Co., 72 W. Va. 148, 77 SE 908, 48 LRANS 683, AnnCas1915C 1220. Wis.-Leasum v. Green Bay, etc., R. Co., 138 Wis. 593, 120 NW 510; Pool v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 53 Wis. 657, 11 NW 15; Chamberlain v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 11 Wis. 238. [a] Illustrations.-(1) A passenger cannot be charged with contributory negligence on account of taking a place on a crowded street car designated by the conductor of the car. Boesen v. Omaha St. R. Co., 79 Nebr. 381, 112 NW 614. (2) Likewise, where a street car from which the intestate was thrown, although an open one, was provided for the accommodation of passengers, and by its arrangement passengers were invited to sit on a rear seat facing the rear of the car, intestate was not guilty of negligence in seating himself in such a seat. Spooner v. Old Colony St. R. Co., 190 Mass. 132. 76 NE 660. (3) Where a passenger, transferred from one car to another, because of an obstruction, follows the course suggested by employees and without fault is injured, the injury is not chargeable to his negligence, unless the danger is obvious. Killmyer v. Wheeling Tract. Co.. 72 W. Va. 148, 77 SE 908, 48 LRANS 683, AnnCas1915C 1220. (4) Where the company's agent requested decedent and other passengers to cross the tracks to the platform so as to take the train, his invitation was an implied assurance, on which decedent could rely, that he could cross the tracks safely, and he would not be negligent unless the danger from the train's approach was SO imminent that, as an ordinarily prudent person, he should have known the peril in crossing. Dieckman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 145 Iowa 250, 121 NW 676, 139 AmSR 420, 31 LRANS. 338; Dieckman v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., (Iowa) 105 NW 526. 79. Ind.-Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Carper, 112 Ind. 26, 13 NE 122, 14 NE 352, 2 AmSR 144; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Holsapple, 12 Ind. A. 301, 38 NE 1107. Iowa.-McGovern V. Inter Urban R. Co., 136 Iowa 13, 111 NW 412, 125 AmSR 215, 13 LRANS 476. Ky.-Louisville, etc., R. Co. V. Smith, 13 KyL 974. Md.-Topp v. United R., etc., Co., 99 Md. 630, 59 A 52, 1 AnnCas 912; United R., etc., Co. v. Woodbridge, 97. Md. 629, 55 A 444. Mich.-Mensing v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 117 Mich. 606, 76 NW 98. Mo.-Griffith v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 98 Mo. 168, 11 SW 559; Senf v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 112 Mo. A. 74, 86 SW 887. N. C.-Hinshaw v. Raleigh. etc., R. Co., 118 N. C. 1047, 24 SE 426. Tenn.-East Tennessee, etc., R. Co. v. Conner, 15 Lea 254. Va.-Chesapeake, etc., R. Co. V. Harris, 103 Va. 635, 49 SE 997. |