Schofield v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. - 8 F. 488, 1881 U.S. App. LEXIS 2372, 2 McCrary's Cir. Ct. Rpts 268

Rule:

If there was mutual fault, if both plaintiff and defendant were guilty of negligence then, unless the defendant acted wantonly, there can be no recovery. Both parties were bound to exercise such care as under ordinary circumstances would avoid danger; such care as men of common prudence would ordinarily use under the circumstances. The degree of care required in such cases depends upon the danger. As there is necessarily great danger in crossing a railroad track where trains are liable to pass at any time, great care is demanded alike of the engineer in charge of the locomotive and of the traveler upon the highway. 

Facts:

Plaintiff Schofield was familiar with the crossing, had often passed it, and the usual sign that was printed in large letters over it gave express warning to persons on the highway to look out for the cars. At the place of crossing, the highway and railroad were nearly on a level, and for a distance before reaching the crossing, plaintiff had a full view of the railroad from the depot to the crossing. If at any time after the train passed the depot, plaintiff had looked in that direction he would have seen it, and if not then too near the train for escape, by stopping his horse he could have avoided the accident and injury. The train was not a regular one, and no train was due at the time of the accident. Also, it was moving at an unusual and dangerous rate of speed. The train did not stop at the depot as trains usually do, but not always. Lastly, there was no signal by blowing the whistle or ringing the bell after the train passed the depot. The plaintiff having closed his evidence, the defendant Chicago M. & ST. P. RY. Co., moved the court to instruct the jury to find for defendant upon the ground that the plaintiff was guilty of negligence which contributed to the action by which he was injured. 

Issue:

Was plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court ruled that it was of the utmost importance that the rules of law governing this question of negligence on the part of employees of railroads, as well as on the part of the traveling public, should be thoroughly understood and rigidly enforced. As railroads were being rapidly constructed in every direction; they necessarily intersect the common highways at numerous points. The court held that the rules of law referred to, required equal care and caution on the part of those who run railroad trains and those who travel the highways, that if obeyed, will prevent accidents. Thus, all parties must hold to its strict observance. In this case, the court is of the opinion that such rules were disregarded by the plaintiff, thus, he cannot recover, and therefore, the pending motion was sustained.