29

that there was negligence." This language was approved by Barnwell, B., in Cornman v. Eastern Counties Railway Co.,27 and may now be considered as the settled law in England.28 As has been pointed out in a former volume, 20 however, the legal scholar on the bench should exercise great caution in substituting his own judgment for that of the twelve men on the jury; as, in nearly every case, the question whether certain facts tend to show negligence is peculiarly a question to be determined from the standpoint of the ordinary man.

§ 7392. Rule where the Evidence so Clearly Shows Negligence that a Verdict for the Defendant would be Set Aside.-If the evidence is so conclusive against the defendant on the question of his negligence that the jury cannot reasonably find to the contrary, the court may decide that question as a matter of law, and leave the question of the plaintiff's contributory negligence to the jury on conflicting evidence.30

§ 7393. Is a Question of Law where Facts are Undisputed and Point to but One Conclusion.-It is frequently stated that when the facts are undisputed or conclusively proved,31 or when the negligence is "clearly defined and palpable," such that no verdict of the jury could make it otherwise,32 or "when there is no controversy as to the facts, and from these it clearly appears what course a person of ordinary prudence would pursue under the circumstances," the question of negligence is purely one of law. It should be remembered, however, that the cases in which the question can thus be withdrawn from the jury are comparatively rare.34 The better opinion would seem to be that, in order to justify the withdrawal of the question of negligence from the jury, the facts must not only be undisputed,

27 4 Hurl. & N. 781, 786.

23 Jackson v. Metropolitan R. Co., 3 App. Cas. 193; s. c. 26 Week. Rep. 10; 5 Reporter 636; Ryder v. Wombwell, L. R. 4 Exch. 38; Jewell v. Parr, 13 C. B. 916.

29 Vol. I, § 425, et seq.

30 Delaware &c. R. Co. V. Converse, 139 U. S. 469; s. c. 35 L. ed. 213; 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 569.

31 Flemming v. Western Pac. R. Co., 49 Cal. 253; Gagg v. Vetter, 41 Ind. 228, 254; Louisville Canal Co. v. Murphy, 9 Bush (Ky.) 522; Dascomb v. Buffalo &c. R. Co., 27 Barb. (N. Y.) 221; Foot v. Wiswall, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 304; McLain v. Van Zandt, 7 Jones & Sp. (N. Y.) 347; Thrings v. Central Park R. Co., 7 Robt. (N. Y.) 616; Van Lien v. Scoville Man. Co., 4 Daly (N. Y.)

554; Biles v. Holmes, 11 Ired. L. (N. C.) 16; Pittsburg &c. R. Co. v. Evans, 53 Pa. St. 250; Grigsby v. Chappel, 5 Rich. (S. C.) 446; Costello v. Landwehr, 28 Wis. 522, 529; Dublin &c. R. Co. v. Slattery, 3 App. Cas. 1155, 1201, per Lord Blackburn.

32 Rudolphy v. Fuchs, 44 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 155, 160; Houfe v. Fulton, 29 Wis. 296.

33 Fernandez v. Sacramento City R. Co., 52 Cal. 45; s. c. 4 Cent. L. J. 82.

34 Rudolphy v. Fuchs, 44 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 155; Railroad Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 657; Detroit &c. R. Co. v. Van Steinburg, 17 Mich. 99, per Cooley, C. J., where the reasons for this are well stated.

but such that the conclusion to be drawn from them is indisputable, and such that all reasonable men must honestly draw the same conclusion therefrom; otherwise the question must be submitted to the jury. 35 There are certain questions, however, which manifestly come

35 St. Louis &c. R. Co. v. Martin, 61 Ark. 549; s. c. 33 S. W. Rep. 1070; Mares v. Northern &c. R. Co.,. 3 Dak. 336; Baltimore &c. R. Co. V. Landrigan, 20 App. (D. C.) 135; Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Yniestra, 21 Fla. 700; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Jarvi, 53 Fed. Rep. 65; s. c. 10 U. S. App. 439; 3 C. C. A. 433; Southern Pac. Co. v. Johnson, 64 Fed. Rep. 951; s. c. 12 C. C. A. 479; Chicago v. Babcock, 143 Ill. 358; s. c. 32 N. E. Rep. 271; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. O'Conner, 119 Ill. 586; s. c. 6 West. Rep. 773; Merchant v. South Chicago City R. Co., 104 Ill. App. 122; Ward v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 61 Ill. App. 530; Werk v. Illinois Steel Co., 54 Ill. App. 302; s. c. aff'd, 154 Ill. 427; 40 N. E. Rep. 442; Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. Walborn, 127 Ind. 142; s. c. 26 N. E. Rep. 207; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Ostrander, 116 Ind. 259; s. c. 12 West. Rep. 718; 15 N. E. Rep. 227; Evansville v. Christy, 29 Ind. App. 44; s. c. 63 N. E. Rep. 867; Lake Shore &c. R. Co. v. Pinchin, 112 Ind. 592; s. c. 11 West. Rep. 247; 13 N. E. Rep. 677; Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Eves, 1 Ind. App. 224; s. c. 27 N. E. Rep. 580; Ohio &c. R. Co. v. Collarn, 73 Ind. 261; Pittsburgh &c. R. Co. v. Seivers, 162 Ind. 234; s. c. 67 N. E. Rep. 680; Salem v. Walker, 16 Ind. App. 687; s. c. 46 N. E. Rep. 90; Young v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 148 Ind. 54; s. c. 44 N. E. Rep. 927; 47 N. E. Rep. 142; Barnhart v. Chicago &c. St. R. Co., 97 Iowa 654; s. c. 66 N. W. Rep. 902; Revelsky v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 79 Iowa 55; s. c. 44 N. W. Rep. 536; Tobey v. Burlington &c. R. Co., 94 Iowa 256; s. c. 33 L. R. A. 496; 62 N. W. Rep. 761; Chanute v. Higgins, 65 Kan. 680; s. c. 70 Pac. Rep. 638; Dewald v. Kansas City &c. R. Co., 44 Kan. 586; s. c. 24 Pac. Rep. 1101; Metropolitan St. R. Co. v. Hanson, 67 Kan. 256; s. c. 72 Pac. Rep. 773; Newport News &c. Co. v. Dentzal, 91 Ky. 42; s. c. 14 S. W. Rep. 958; 12 Ky. L. Rep. 626; Blumenthal v. Boston &c. R. Co., 97 Me. 255; s. c. 54 Atl. Rep. 747; Lasky v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 83

Me. 461; s. c. 22 Atl. Rep. 367; Watson v. Portland &c. R. Co., 91 Me. 584; 44 L. R. A. 157; 64 Am. St. Rep. 268; 11 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 194; 40 Atl. Rep. 699; Knight v. Baltimore, 97 Md. 647; s. c. 55 Atl. Rep. 388; Philadelphia &c. R. Co. v. Anderson, 72 Md. 519; s. c. 20 Atl. Rep. 2; 8 L. R. A. 673; State v. Baltimore &c. R. Co., 69 Md. 339; s. c. 14 Atl. Rep. 688; Craig v. New York &c. R. Co., 188 Mass. 431; Manning v. Detroit &c. R. Co., 67 Mich. 677; s. c. 12 West. Rep. 427; 35 N. W. Rep. 811; Underhill v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 81 Mich. 43; s. c. 45 N. W. Rep. 508; Kinney v. Springfield, 35 Mo. App. 97; Guthrie v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 51 Neb. 746; s. c. 71 N. W. Rep. 722; Beltz v. Yonkers, 148 N. Y. 67; Greaný v. Long Island R. Co., 101 N. Y. 419; McDonnell v. Long Island R. Co., 116 N. Y. 546; s. c. 22 N. E. Rep. 1068; 27 N. Y. St. Rep. 481; Minor v. Clark, 55 Hun (N. Y.) 603; s. c. 28 N. Y. St. Rep. 184; 8 N. Y. Supp. 616; Omaha St. R. Co. v. Martin, 48 Neb. 65; s. c. 66 N. W. Rep. 1007; 4 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 1; Heckman v. Evenson, 7 N. D. 173; s. c. 73 N. W. Rep. 427; Emry v. Raleigh &c. R. Co., 109 N. C. 589; s. c. 15 L. R. A. 332; 14 S. E. Rep. 352; Pleasants v. Raleigh &c. R. Co., 95 N. C. 195; Smith v. Richmond &c. R. Co., 99 N. C. 241; s. c. 5 S. E. Rep. 896; Bare v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 135 Pa. St. 95; s. c. 19 Atl. Rep. 935; Delaware &c. R. Co. v. Cadow, 120 Pa. St. 559; s. c. 14 Atl. Rep. 450; 21 W. N. C. (Pa.) 516; Ely v. Pittsburg &c. R. Co., 158 Pa. St. 233; s. c. 24 Pitts. L. J. (N. S.) 270; 27 Atl. Rep. 970; Hookey v. Oakdale, 5 Pa. Super. 404; Crawford v. Houston &c. R. Co., 89 Tex. 89; s. c. 33 S. W. Rep. 534; aff'g s. c. 32 S. W. Rep. 155; Saunders v. Southern Pac. Co., 13 Utah 275; s. c. 44 Pac. Rep. 932; 4 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 13; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. O'Brien, 1 Wash. 599; s. c. 21 Pac. Rep. 32; Hart v. West Side R. Co., 86 Wis. 483; s. c. 57 N. W. Rep. 91; Hoye v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 62

within the class which the court is entitled to withdraw from the jury. Thus, whether a certain rule of a railroad corporation be reasonable, and therefore intra vires, is a question of law for the court; but whether such a rule is adequate for the safe management of trains is a question of fact.36

§ 7394. Is a Question of Fact where Fair-Minded Men Might Draw Different Conclusions from Disputed or Undisputed Facts. -Whether the facts be disputed or undisputed, if impartial, fairminded, reasonable and capable men may honestly draw different conclusions from them, the case must be submitted to the jury.37

Wis. 666; Salladay v. Dodgeville, 85 Wis. 318; s. c. 20 L. R. A. 541; 55 N. W. Rep. 696; Gardner v. Michigan Cent. R. Co., 150 U. S. 349; s. c. 37 L. ed. 1107; 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 140; Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Ives, 144 U. S. 417; s. c. 36 L. ed. 489; Kane v. Northern &c. R. Co., 128 U. S. 91; s. c. 32 L. ed. 339; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Peterson, 55 Fed. Rep. 940; s. c. 12 U. S. App. 254; O'Neill v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 1 McCrary (U. S.) 505. Even though there is contradiction in the evidence as to some facts, yet if those that are uncontradicted clearly and indisputably establish negligence, the question of negligence is still for the court: Abbett v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 30 Minn. 482. The question of liability of the master becomes one of law, in an action by a servant for injury by a defective appliance, where the facts are indisputable, and the conclusion of such negligent omission of duty by the defendant is one at which all reasonable men must arrive: Toledo Brewing &c. Co. v. Bosch, 101 Fed. Rep. 530; s. c. 41 C. C. A. 482. The question of negligence of a railroad company is for the court in a case where a trespasser caught his foot in the rails, and positive and undisputed evidence shows that the engine was only 200 feet from the plaintiff, and that, upon hearing the outcry by the plaintiff, every effort was made by those in charge of the engine to avoid the injury, but the train could not be stopped in time,-such facts showing, as matter of law, that defendant was not negligent: Sheehan v. St. Paul &c. R. Co., 76 Fed. Rep. 201; s. c. 22 C. C. A. 121; 46 U. S. App. 498. Whether the officials of a savings

bank used that degree of care and
prudence, in paying money to one
in possession of a pass-book, that a
reasonably careful and prudent
man would have used under the cir-
cumstances, is a question for the
court, under the uncontradicted tes-
timony of the teller of the bank of
the use of such care, even though
his testimony is based upon the
course of business which he is rea-
sonably certain was followed, as
shown by entries made: Geitelsohn
v. Citizens' Sav. Bank, 17 Misc. (N.
Y.) 574; s. c. 40 N. Y. Supp. 662.
The court may assume the exist-
ence of negligence as a matter of
law, under undisputed or a given
state of facts, where, after conced-
ing the facts which tend to prove
freedom from negligence on the
part of the party charged there-
with, it still appears that but one
reasonable conclusion can be drawn
from the facts-that of negligence
on the part of the defendant: Mor-
ris v. O'Brien, 81 Ill. App. 202.
36 Chicago &c. R. Co. v. McLaller,
84 III. 109.

V.

37 Mouton Louisville &c. R. Co., 128 Ala. 537; s. c. 29 South. Rep. 602; Buchel v. Gray, 115 Cal. 421; s. c. 47 Pac. Rep. 112; Fernandez v. Sacramento City R. Co., 52 Cal. 45; s. c. 4 Cent. L. J. 82; Beers v. Housatonic R. Co., 19 Conn. 566; Ryan v. Chelsea Paper Man. Co., 69 Conn. 454; s. c. 37 Atl. Rep. 1062; Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. Golway, 6 App. (D. C.) 143; s. c. 23 Wash. L. Rep. 308; Eddy v. Lafayette, 49 Fed. Rep. 798; s. c. 2 U. S. App. 243; 1 C. C. A. 432; Hathaway v. East Tennessee &c. R. Co., 29 Fed. Rep. 489; Mason &c. R. Co. v. Yockey, 103 Fed. Rep. 265; S. c. 43 C. C. A. 228; St. Louis &c.

$7395. Rule where Plaintiff's Testimony is Equally Consistent with Existence and Non-Existence of Negligence.-Bearing in mind.

R. Co. v. Leftwich, 117 Fed. Rep. 127; s. c. 54 C. C. A. 1; Tennessee Coal &c. Co. v. Currier, 108 Fed. Rep. 19; s. c. 47 C. C. A. 161; Consumers' Elec. Light &c. Co. V. Pryor, 44 Fla. 354; s. c. 32 South. Rep. 797; Bellville v. Hoffman, 74 Ill. App. 503; Black v. Swift, 161 Ill. 107; s. c. 43 N. E. Rep. 591; aff'g s. c. 58 Ill. App. 354; Braun v. Conrad Seipp Brew. Co., 72 Ill. App. 232; Chicago v. Moore, 139 Ill. 201; s. c. 28 N. E. Rep. 1071; aff'g s. c. 40 Ill. App. 332; Chicago Dredging &c. Co. v. McMahon, 30 Ill. App. 358; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Hansen, 166 Ill. 623; s. c. 2 Chic. L. J. Wkly. 261; 46 N. E. Rep. 1071; aff'g s. c. 2 Chic. L. J. Wkly. 114; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Harper, 26 Ill. App. 621; s. c. aff'd, 128 Ill. 384; 19 N. E. Rep. 31; 21 N. E. Rep. 561; Lamson v. Illinois Trust &c. Co., 166 Ill. 162; s. c. 46 N. E. Rep. 779; aff'g s. c. 62 Ill. App. 377 (question for jury if conclusion of negligence may or may not result from the facts, depending on other facts); St. Louis Brew. Assn. v. Hamilton, 41 Ill. App. 481; Vandalia v. Ropp, 39 Ill. App. 344; Wilcoxon v. Wilcoxon, 165 Ill. 454; s. c. 46 N. E. Rep. 369; Cleveland &c. R. Co. v. Harrington, 131 Ind. 426; s. c. 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 358; 30 N. E. Rep. 37; Shoner v. Pennsylvania Co., 130 Ind. 170; s. c. 28 N. E. Rep. 616; 29 N. E. Rep. 775; Malott v. Hawkins, 159 Ind. 127; s. c. 63 N. E. Rep. 308; Armstrong v. Ackley, 71 Iowa 76; s. c. 32 N. W. Rep. 180; Baldwin v. St. Louis &c. R. Co., 72 Iowa 45; s. c. 33 N. W. Rep. 356; Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Richardson, 25 Kan. 391; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Lipprand, 5 Kan. App. 484; s. c. 47 Pac. Rep. 625; State v. Baltimore &c. R. Co., 69 Md. 339; s. c. 14 Atl. Rep. 688; Gaynor v. Old Colony &c. R. Co., 100 Mass. 208, 212; Ashman v. Flint &c. R. Co, 90 Mich. 567; s. c. 51 N. W. Rep. 645; Detroit &c. R. Co. v. Van Steinburg, 17 Mich. 99; Palmer v. Harrison, 57 Mich. 182; s. c. 23 N. W. Rep. 624; Boland v. Kansas City, 32 Mo. App. 8; Clay v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 24 Mo. App. 39; Davis v. Kansas City &c. R. Co., 46 Mo. App. 180; Doyle v. Missouri

&c. Trust Co., 140 Mo. 1; s. c. 41 S. W. Rep. 255; Gratiot v. Missouri &c. R. Co., 116 Mo. 450; s. c. 16 L. R. A. 189; 49 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 408; 19 S. W. Rep. 31; Huhn v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 92 Mo. 440; s. c. 10 West. Rep. 405; 4 S. W. Rep. 937; Norton v. Ittner, 56 Mo. 351; Palmer v. Kinloch Tel. Co., 91 Mo. App. 106; Plefka v. KnappStout Lumber Co., 72 Mo. App. 309; Smith v. Little Pittsburg Coal Co., 75 Mo. App. 177; s. c. 1 Mo. App. Repr. 324; Stoddard v. St. Louis &c. R. Co., 65 Mo. 514; Wyatt v. Citizens' R. Co., 55 Mo. 485; American Waterworks Co. v. Dougherty, 37 Neb. 373; s. c. 55 N. W. Rep. 1051; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Landauer, 36 Neb. 642; s. c. 54 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 640; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Wymore, 40 Neb. 645; s. c. 58 N. W. Rep. 1120; Lincoln v. Gillilan, 18 Neb. 114; Miller v. Stevens, 48 Neb. 458; s. c. 67 N. W. Rep. 458; Omaha v. Ayer, 32 Neb. 375; s. c. 49 N. W. Rep. 445; Omaha &c. R. Co. v. Brady, 39 Neb. 27; s. c. 57 N. W. Rep. 767; Omaha St. R. Co. v. Lochneisen, 40 Neb. 37; s. c. 58 N. W. Rep. 535; Plainview v. Mendelson, 65 Neb. 85; s. c. 90 N. W. Rep. 956; State v. Railroad Co., 52 N. H. 529; Orange &c. R. Co. v. Ward, 47 N. J. L. 560; Coyle v. Third Ave. R. Co., 17 Misc. (N. Y.) 282; s. c. 40 N. Y. Supp. 362; s. c. rev'd on other grounds, 18 Misc. (N. Y.) 9; 40 N. Y. Supp. 1131; Dumes v. Sizer, 3 App. Div. (N. Y.) 11; s. c. 37 N. Y. Supp. 929; 73 N. Y. St. Rep. 548; Galasso v. National S. S. Co., 27 App. Div. (N. Y.) 169; s. c. 50 N. Y. Supp. 417; 51 N. Y. Supp. 136; Gardner v. Friedrick, 25 App. Div. (N. Y.) 521; s. c. 49 N. Y. Supp. 1077; Guliano v. Whitenack, 9 Misc. (N. Y.) 8; s. c. 59 N. Y. St. Rep. 738; 29 N. Y. Supp. 20; McGrath v. Hudson River R. Co., 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 144; s. c. 19 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 211; Wilhelm v. Brooklyn &c. R. Co., 32 App. Div. (N. Y.) 237; s. c. 52 N. Y. Supp. 1090; Jenkins v. Little Miami R. Co., 2 Disney (Ohio) 49; Delaware &c. R. Co. v. Cadow, 120 Pa. St. 559; s. c. 14 Atl. Rep. 450; 21 W. N. C. (Pa.) 516; Delaware &c. R. Co. v. Jones, 128 Pa. St. 308; s. c. 18 Atl. Rep. 330;

that it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to move the court in every case, it will be seen that this is not accomplished when the evidence produced is equally consistent with the existence or non-existence of negligence; and in such cases it is improper for the judge to leave the question to the jury.38 Thus, where the plaintiff alleges that a locomotive-engine on the defendant's railroad emitted a spark which started a fire on his premises, and there is evidence that the fire started about fifteen minutes after the train had passed, and that the wind was blowing from the direction of the train toward the place where the fire started, and that there was a sawmill about the same distance as the railroad tracks, and there is evidence in behalf of the defendant that the equipments of the engine were perfect, and that frequent firing caused much smoke but did not increase the sparks, the court is justified in withdrawing the case from the jury.39

$7396. In Case of Violation of Penal Statutes and Municipal Ordinances. It has sometimes been said that where the circumstances of a case are such that the standard of duty is fixed, and the measure of duty is defined by law, and is the same under all circumstances, its omission is negligence as a matter of law.40 Whether the rule

47 Phila. Leg. Int. 396; 24 W. N. C. (Pa.) 562; Fisher v. Monongahela &c. Co., 131 Pa. St. 292; s. c. 18 Atl. Rep. 1016; 25 W. N. C. (Pa.) 161; 47 Phila. Leg. Int. 143; Johnson v. Bruner, 61 Pa. St. 58; Pennsylvania Canal Co. v. Bentley, 66 Pa. St. 30, 34; Smith v. Baltimore &c. R. Co., 158 Pa. St. 82; s. c. 24 Pitts. L. J. (N. S.) 185; 27 Atl. Rep. 847; Wood v. Bridgeport, 143 Pa. St. 167; s. c. 48 Phila. Leg. Int. 500; 22 Atl. Rep. 752; Reid v. Kellogg, 8 S. D. 596; s. c. 67 N. W. Rep. 687; Bowers v. Union Pac. R. Co., 4 Utah 215; s. c. 7 Pac. Rep. 251; Reese v. Morgan Silver Min. Co., 15 Utah 453; s. c. 49 Pac. Rep. 824; Southern R. Co. v. Torian, 95 Va. 435; s. c. 28 S. E. Rep. 569; Vinton v. Schwab, 32 Vt. 612; Raines v. Chesapeake &c. R. Co., 39 W. Va. 50; s. c. 24 L. R. A. 226; 19 S. E. Rep. 565; Manning v. Chesapeake &c. R. Co., 36 W. Va. 329; s. c. 16 L. R. A. 271; 12 Rail. & Corp. L. J. 21; 50 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 37; 15 S. E. Rep. 81; Baltzer v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 83 Wis. 459; s. c. 53 N. W. Rep. 885; Dahl v. Milwaukee &c. R. Co., 62 Wis. 652; Hoye v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 62 Wis. 666; Leavitt v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 64 Wis. 228; Baltimore &c. R. Co. v.

Griffith, 159 U. S. 603; s. c. 40 L. ed. 274; 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 105; Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Ives, 144 U. S. 408; s. c. 36 L. ed. 487; 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 679; Railroad Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 657; Richmond &c. R. Co. v. Powers, 149 U. S. 43; s. c. 37 L. ed. 642; 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 748; Warner v. Baltimore &c. R. Co., 168 U. S. 339; s. c. 42 L. ed. 491; 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 68; Bridges v. North London R. Co., L. R. 7 H. L. 213.

38 Cotton v. Wood, 8 C. B. (N. S.) 568; Cadwell v. Arnheim, 152 N. Y. 182; s. c. 46 N. E. Rep. 310. See also the opinion of Lord Blackburn in Dublin &c. R. Co. v. Slattery, 3 App. Cas. 1155.

39 Williams v. Southern R. Co., 130 N. C. 116; s. c. 40 S. E. Rep. 979.

40

o West Chester &c. R. Co. v. McElwee, 67 Pa. St. 311, 315; McCully v. Clarke, 40 Pa. St. 399. Negligence becomes a question of law in the absence of any prescribed standard only when the facts and circumstances of the case are so decisive as to leave no reasonable doubt concerning it: Worthington v. Central Vermont R. Co., 64 Vt. 107; s. c. 15 L. R. A. 326; 45 Alb. L. J. 299; 23 Atl. Rep. 690.