can be stated so broadly, however, is doubtful. The standard or measure of duty is fixed by law in every case, being reasonable care, and whether such care has been exercised is generally a question of fact. The rule applies more properly to the violation of statutes and valid municipal ordinances intended to subserve the public safety. Thus, it has been held a question for the court, whether it is negligence not to comply with a city ordinance duly authorized by law, expressly requiring railroad-trains while passing through the city limits to observe a certain rate of speed and to keep head-lights burning and the bell ringing.42 Whether the presumption of negligence raised against the defendant by force of a statute has been overcome by evidence, is a question of fact.43 41 ARTICLE II. APPLICATIONS OF THESE DOCTRINES IN VARIOUS CONDITIONS OF FACT. SECTION 7400. In cases of railway injuries. 7401. In cases of street-railway injuries. 7402. In cases against municipal corporations. 7403. In actions against the master by his servant. SECTION 7404. A collection of cases in which the negligence of the de-. fendant was deemed a question of law. 7405. Miscellaneous examples in which the negligence of the defendant was deemed a question for the jury. § 7400. In Cases of Railway Injuries.-Questions for the jury relating to the negligence of the defendant are presented in the cases cited in the margin.1 41 1 Belleville v. Hoffman, 74 Ill. App. 50. Karle v. Kansas City &c. R. Co., 55 Mo. 476. 43 Central R. Co. v. Hubbard, 86 Ga. 623; s. c. 12 S. E. Rep. 1020; Savannah &c. R. Co. v. Phillips, 90 Ga. 829; s. c. 17 S. E. Rep. 82. 'Commission or omission of particular act by railroad company whereby plaintiff was injured by train: Alabama &c. R. Co. V. Hatcher, 116 Ga. 791; s. c. 43 S. E. Rep. 49; Heddles v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 74 Wis. 239; s. c. 42 N. W. Rep. 237. Injuries to children on railroadtracks or turntables: Alabama &c. R. Co. v. Crocker, 131 Ala. 584; s. c. 31 South. Rep. 561 (six-year-old boy injured while playing on turntable); Edington v. Burlington &c. R. Co., 116 Iowa 410; S. C. 57 L. R. A. 561; 90 N. W. Rep. 95 (child playing on turntable); Johnston v. Atchison &c. R. Co., 56 Kan. 263; s. c. 43 Pac. Rep. 228 (whether engineer saw plaintiff before injury); Texas &c. R. Co. v. Yarbrough (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. Rep. 844 (discovering child in time to avoid injury). Duty of railroad company to fence right of way: Brandenburg v. St. Louis &c. R. Co., 44 Mo. App. 224 (near depot); Straub v. Eddy, 47 Mo. App. 189 (near station). Whether right-of-way fences were properly constructed and maintained: Hendrickson v. Philadelphia &c. R. Co., 68 N. J. L. 242; s. c. 52 Atl. Rep. 232; Hendrickson v. Philadelphia &c. R. Co., 68 N. J. L. 612; S. C. 54 Atl. Rep. 831 (whether railroad company performed its duty of inspecting rightof-way fence); Texas &c. R. Co. v. Hooten, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 139; s. c. 50 S. W. Rep. 499; Perrault v. Minneapolis &c. R. Co., 117 Wis. 520; S. C. 94 N. W. Rep. 348 (whether a right-of-way fence was sufficient). Injuring or killing stock on right of way: Denver &c. R. Co. v. Nye, 9 Colo. App. 94; s. c. 47 Pac. Rep. 654 (horses); Kinyon v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 118 Iowa 349; s. c. 92 N. W. Rep. 40 (cattle); Mears v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 103 Iowa 203; s. c. 72 N. W. Rep. 509 (horses); Alabama &c. R. Co. v. Moore, 81 Miss. 14; s. c. 32 South. Rep. 908 (horse); Baird v. Georgia &c. R. Co. (Miss.), 19 South. Rep. 661 (no off. rep.) (horses); Bowen v. Mobile &c. R. Co. (Miss.), 33 South. Rep. 441 (horse); Kimball v. St. Louis &c. R. Co., 89 Mo. App. 335; s. c. 73 S. W. Rep. 224 (cow); Schimke v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 11 S. D. 471; s. c. 78 N. W. Rep. 951 (cattle); Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Cooper, 32 Tex. Civ. App. 592; s. c. 75 S. W. Rep. 328; Rafferty v. Portland &c. R. Co., 32 Wash. 259; s. c. 73 Pac. Rep. 382 (horses). Injuries from alleged unlawful rate of speed: Pennsylvania Co. v. Reidy, 99 Ill. App. 477; s. c. aff'd, 198 Ill. 9; 64 N. E. Rep. 698; Denton v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 75 App. Div. (N. Y.) 619; s. c. 78 N. Y. Supp. 157; Kirby v. Southern R. Co., 63 S. C. 494; s. c. 41 S. E. Rep. 765. Injuries to persons on railroadtrack from alleged improper operation of trains: Alabama &c. R. Co. v. Hamilton, 135 Ala. 343; s. c. 33 South. Rep. 157 (failure to stop train); Arizona &c. R. Co. v. Nevitt (Ariz.), 68 Pac. Rep. 550 (flying switches); Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Murowski, 179 Ill. 77; s. c. 53 N. E. Rep. 572; aff'g s. c. 78 Ill. App. 661 (omission to give warning); Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Smith, 180 III. 453; s. c. 54 N. E. Rep. 325; aff'g s. c. 77 Ill. App. 492; Goodrich v. Burlington &c. R. Co., 103 Iowa 412; s. c. 72 N. W. Rep. 653 (failing to stop detached cars before reaching a boy whose foot was caught between the main and guard rails); Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Lowe (Ky.), 66 S. W. Rep. 736 (no off. rep.) (whether defendant could have avoided the injury after discovering plaintiff); Gulf &c. R. Co. v. Johnston, 28 Tex. Civ. App. 395; s. c. 67 S. W. Rep. 1040 (seeing plaintiff in time to avoid injury); Carrow v. Barre R. Co., 74 Vt. 176; S. c. 52 Atl. Rep. 537 (backing train); Connell v. Southern R. Co., 91 Fed. Rep. 466 (as to speed, light and guards). Whether there was an omission to exercise proper care to avoid injury to persons at railroad-crossings: Kansas City &c. R. Co. v. Wagand, 134 Ala. 388; S. c. 32 South. Rep. 744 (failure to stop heavily loaded freight-train); Memphis &c. R. Co. v. Sanders, 43 Ark. 225 (horse falling on track at crossing); Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Punds (Ind. Ter.), 35 S. W. Rep. 249 (no off. rep.) (failing to discover the danger of a person at a crossing in time to avoid injuring him); Allen v. Ames &c. R. Co., 106 Iowa 602; s. c. 76 N. W. Rep. 848 (backing across a street without giving signal or having a lookout); Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Ward, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1900; s. c. 44 S. W. Rep. 1112 (no off. rep); Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. Owings, 65 Md. 502; Geveke v. Grand Rapids &c. R. Co., 57 Mich. 589; s. c. 24 N. W. Rep. 675 (failing to see person trying to cross); Mott v. Detroit &c. R. Co., 120 Mich. 127; s. c. 79 N. W. Rep. 3 (collision of hand-car and buggy); De Loge v. New York Cent. &c. R. Co., 157 N. Y. 688; s. c. 51 N. E. Rep. 1090; aff'g s. c. 92 Hun (N. Y.) 149; 36 N. Y. Supp. 697; O'Bierne v. New York &c. R. Co., 37 App. Div. (N. Y.) 547; s. c. 56 N. Y. Supp. 236; 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 699 (detaching a car and permitting it to run rapidly without a brakeman in charge); Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Brandtmaier, 113 Pa. St. 610; Shoemaker v. Texas &c. R. Co., 29 Tex. Civ. App. 578; s. c. 69 S. W. Rep. 990 (injury at railroad-crossing caused by incompetent engineer). Injuries caused by alleged excessive speed at railroad-crossings: Georgia R. &c. Co. v. Cromer, 106 Ga. 296; s. c. 31 S. E. Rep. 759 (crossing much used but not a highway crossing); Pennsylvania Co. v. Reidy, 198 Ill. 9; s. c. 64 N. E. Rep. 698; aff'g s. c. 99 Ill. App. 477; Marks v. Fitchburgh R. Co., 155 Mass. 493; s. c. 29 N. E. Rep. 1148; Bolinger v. St. Paul &c. R. Co., 36 Minn. 418; S. C. 31 N. W. Rep. 856 (whether the rate of speed was reasonable); Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Sporer, Neb.; s. c. 94 N. W. Rep. 991; Flanagan v. New York Cent. &c. R. Co., 173 N. Y. 631; s. c. 66 N. E. Rep. 1108; aff'g s. c. 70 App. Div. (N. Y.) 505; 75 N. Y. Supp. 225 (twenty to twenty-five miles an hour); Waldele v. New York &c. R. Co., 95 N. Y. 274; rev'g s. c. 29 Hun (N. Y.) 35; and aff'g s. c. 19 Hun (N. Y.) 69 (backing at rate of twenty miles an hour); Custer v. Baltimore &c. R. Co., 19 Pa. Super. 365; Shatto v. Erie R. Co., 121 Fed. Rep. 678 (higher speed than prescribed by ordinance). Injuries at railroad-crossings caused by alleged negligence of gateman: Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. Adams, 10 App. (D. C.) 97; s. c. 25 Wash. L. Rep. 167 (failing to maintain gates or watchman at a railroad-crossing); Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. Carrington, 3 App. (D. C.) 101; s. c. 22 Wash. L. Rep. 284 (negligence in not closing a gate at a crossing); Tabello v. Delaware &c. R. Co., 67 N. J. L. 581; s. c. 52 Atl. Rep. 561 (raising gate when locomotive is approaching); Thompson v. Missouri &c. R. Co., 11 Tex. Civ. App. 307; s. c. 32 S. W. Rep. 191 (failing to provide guards and lookouts at public crossings). Injuries caused by alleged defective condition of railroad-crossing: Birmingham Southern R. Co. v. Powell, 136 Ala. 232; s. c. 33 South. Rep. 875 (want of safety appliances to prevent collision); Atchison &c. R. Co. v. Henry, 57 Kan. 154; s. c. 45 Pac. Rep. 576 (improperly restoring crossing); Whitby v. Baltimore &c. R. Co., 96 Md. 700; s. c. 54 Atl. Rep. 674 (defective crossing and approaches); Camp v. Wabash R. Co., 94 Mo. App. 272; s. c. 68 S. W. Rep. 96 (negligence in maintaining approach); St. Louis &c. R. Co. v. Byas, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 657; s. c. 35 S. W. Rep. 22 (failure to keep railroad-crossing in proper condition for travelling public, as required by law). Injuries caused by obstructed railroad-crossings: Smith v. Savannah &c. R. Co., 84 Ga. 698; s. c. 11 S. E. Rep. 455; 42 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 105 (cars blocking the highway); Young v. Detroit &c. R. Co., 56 Mich. 430 (train standing across road); Rusterholtz v. New York &c. R. Co., 191 Pa. St. 390; s. c. 43 Atl. Rep. 208 (allowing cars to stand at a public crossing). Injuries caused by obstruction of Balti view at railroad-crossings: more &c. R. Co.. v. Carrington, 3 App. (D. C.) 101; s. c. 22 Wash. L. Rep. 284 (view obstructed by freight-train); Atchison &c. R. Co. v. Willey, 57 Kan. 764; s. c. 48 Pac. Rep. 25 (hedge and a grove obstructing view); Klanowski v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 57 Mich. 525; s. c. 24 N. W. Rep. 801 (train hidden from view by shrubbery); Bump v. New York &c. R. Co., 38 App. Div. (N. Y.) 60; s. c. 29 Civ. Proc. Rep. (N. Y.) 141; 55 N. Y. Supp. 962 (track partly hidden from view by embankment and fence); Whalen v. New York Cent. &c. R. Co., 39 App. Div. (N. Y.) 642; s. c. 57 N. Y. Supp. 194 (cars standing on an adjacent track obstructing view); Childs v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 150 Pa. St. 73; s. c. 1 Pa. Adv. Rep. 841; 30 W. N. C. (Pa.) 245; 22 Pitts. L. J. (N. S.) 466; 24 Atl. Rep. 341 (train could not be seen until within 900 feet); Gulf &c. R. Co. v. Letsch (Tex. Civ. App.), 55 S. W. Rep. 584 (view of track obstructed by house). Injuries caused by failure to provide flagmen at railroad-crossings: Pratt v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 107 Iowa 287; s. c. 77 N. W. Rep. 1064; Doyle v. Pennsylvania &c. Canal &c. Co., 139 N. Y. 637; s. c. 54 N. Y. St. Rep. 719; 34 N. E. Rep. 1063. Injuries caused by alleged negligence of flagmen at railroad-crossings: Dundon v. New York &c. R. Co., 67 Conn. 266; s. c. 34 Atl. Rep. 1041 (absence of flagman from his post); Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Clough, 134 Ill. 586; s. c. 45 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 137; 25 N. E. Rep. 664; aff'g s. c. 33 Ill. App. 129 (first giving a signal to cross and afterward signalling to stop); Wolcott v. New York &c. R. Co., 68 N. J. L. 421; s. c. 53 Atl. Rep. 297 (whether flagman gave warning). Injuries caused by alleged failure to ring bell or blow whistle: Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Corson, 198 Ill. 98; s. c. 64 N. E. Rep. 739; aff'g s. c. 101 Ill. App. 115; Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Murowski, 179 Ill. 77; s. c. 53 N. E. Rep. 572; aff'g s. c. 78 Ill. App. 661; Chesapeake &c. R. Co. v. Ogles, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 2160; s. c. 73 S. W. Rep. 751 (no off. rep.); Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Walden, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1; s. c. 74 S. W. Rep. 694 (no off. rep.); Daniels v. New York &c. R. Co., 183 Mass. 393; s. c. 67 N. E. Rep. 424; Nash v. New York $7401. In Cases of Street-Railway Injuries.-In the cases cited below, the negligence of the defendant was deemed a question for the jury, where it rested upon the determination of the following ques tions.2 &c. R. Co., 125 N. Y. 715 (mem.); s. c. 26 N. E. Rep. 266; 34 N. Y. St. Rep. 788; rev'g s. c. 51 Hun (N. Y.) 594; 22 N. Y. St., Rep. 106; 4 N. Y. Supp. 525; Puff v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 71 Hun (N. Y.) 577; s. c. 55 N. Y. St. Rep. 91; 24 N. Y. Supp. 1068; Robson v. Nassau Elec. R. Co., 80 App. Div. (N. Y.) 301; s. c. 80 N. Y. Supp. 698; Sayer v. King, 21 App. Div. (N. Y.) 624; s. c. 47 N. Y. Supp. 420; Swart v. New York Cent. &c. R. Co., 81 App. Div. (N. Y.) 402; s. c. 80 N. Y. Supp. 906; Cox v. Norfolk &c. R. Co., 123 N. C. 604; s. c. 12 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 390; 31 S. E. Rep. 848. Other cases: Burlington &c. R. Co. v. Burch, 17 Colo. App. 491; s. c. 69 Pac. Rep. 6 (injury by fires alleged to have been started by locomotives); Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. Cumberland, 12 App. (D. C.) 598 (sufficiency of light displayed on advancing end of defendant's train, as required by ordinance); Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Delaney, 169 III. 304; s. c. 48 N. E. Rep. 476 (whether a railroad company had sufficient notice of an obstruction on its track); Atchison &c. R. Co. v. Cross, 58 Kan. 424; s. c. 49 Pac. Rep. 599 (whether railroad company had given license to public to pass around trains on its right of way while the street-crossing was obstructed); O'Banion V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 65 Kan. 352; s. c. 69 Pac. Rep. 353 (brakeman forcibly ejecting trespasser from car in discharge of his duty, or for purpose of extorting money); Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Logsdon, 114 Ky. 746; s. c. 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1566; 71 S. W. Rep. 905 (injury to one loading a lumber-car by collision with another car run onto the switch); Louisville &c. R. Co. v. Tow, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 408; s. c. 63 S. W. Rep. 27 (no off. rep.) (injury by blast in cut in defendant's road, by stone thrown by blast, which was made without giving plaintiff notice); Brown v. Pontiac &c. R. Co., 133 Mich. 371; s. c. 94 N. W. Rep. 1050; 10 Det. Leg. N. 173 (frightening V. horse by shunting cars along track in street); O'Donnell v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 65 Neb. 612; s. c. 91 N. W. Rep. 566 (failure to stop train on seeing a boy eight years old jumping on and off); Hill v. Baltimore &c. R. Co., 75 App. Div. (N. Y.) 325; s. c. 78 N. Y. Supp. 134; 11 N. Y. Ann. Cas. 418 (reasonable and proper manner of ejecting trespasser from car); O'Harra v. New York &c. R. Co., 92 Hun (N. Y.) 56; s. c. 36 N. Y. Supp. 567; 71 N.. Y. St. Rep. 763; s. c. aff'd, 153, N. Y. 691 (injury to militiaman guarding defendant's property during a strike, by being run over by a train); Thompson New York Cent. &c. R. Co., 41 App. Div. (N. Y.) 78; s. c. 58 N. Y. Supp. 193 (falling into ditch on railroad right of way over which a highway and a way for pedestrians extend, on a dark night); Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Horst, 110 Pa. St. 226; s. c. 1 Cent. Rep. 95 (permitting portion of train to block part of highway, causing injury to plaintiff); Over v. Missouri &c. R. Co., Tex. Civ. App.; s. c. 73 S. W. Rep. 535 (running cars detached from locomotive across pathway used by custom and acquiescence, without ringing bell or sounding whistle, a lookout being kept by the men on the cars); Chesapeake &c. R. Co. v. American Exch. Bank, 92 Va. 495; s. c. 44 L. R. A. 449; 1 Va. L. Reg. 825; 23 S. E. Rep. 935 (safety and suitability of platform used by railroad company for unloading horses); Euting v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 116 Wis. 13; s. c. 60 L. R. A. 158; 92 N. W. Rep. 358 (injury to boy standing near track by explosion of torpedo placed on track_by fireman for his amusement). But the proper manner of constructing a railroad-crossing is not for the jury: Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Armstrong, 62 Ill. App. 228. 2 Whether a car was started too suddenly: Conner v. Citizens' St. R. Co., 146 Ind. 430; s. c. 44 N. E. Rep. 16; 45 N. E. Rep. 662; 7 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 287. Whether a car was started too soon: Crow v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 70 App. Div. (N. Y.) 202; s. c. 75 N. Y. Supp. 377; Bensing v. People's Elec. St. R. Co., 9 Pa. Super. 142. Whether a car was running at too high a rate of speed: Kernan v. Market St. R. Co., 137 Cal. 326; s. c. 70 Pac. Rep. 81; Chicago City R. Co. v. Fennimore, 199 Ill. 9; s. c. 64 N. E. Rep. 985; aff'g s. c. 99 Ill. App. 174; Stanley v. Cedar Rapids &c. R. Co., 119 Iowa 526; s. c. 93 N. W. Rep. 489; Holmgren v. St. Paul City R. Co., 61 Minn. 85; s. c. 63 N. W. Rep. 270; Hogan v. Citizens R. Co., 150 Mo. 36; s. c. 51 S. W. Rep. 473; Van Natta v. People's St. R. &c. Co., 133 Mo. 13; s. c. 34 S. W. Rep. 505; Hoyt v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 73 App. Div. (N. Y.) 249; s. c. 76 N. Y. Supp. 832; Gaughan v. Second Ave. Trac. Co., 189 Pa. St. 408; s. c. 42 Atl. Rep. 41. Whether the uneven condition of the tracks rendered them unfit for travel: Baumgartner v. Mankato, 60 Minn. 244; s. c. 62 N. W. Rep. 127; Gray v. Washington Water Power Co., 27 Wash. 713; s. c. 68 Pac. Rep. 360. Whether one car was following another too closely: Morris v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 170 N. Y. 592; s. c. 63 N. E. Rep. 1119; aff'g s. c. 63 App. Div. (N. Y.) 78; 71 N. Y. Supp. 321. Whether there was a failure to keep a sufficient lookout on a car: Sciurba v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 73 App. Div. (N. Y.) 170; s. c. 76 N. Y. Supp. 772. Whether it was negligence not to stop the car on seeing one in a perilous position: Pope v. Kansas City &c. R. Co., 99 Mo. 400; s. c. 12 S. W. Rep. 891; 43 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 290; Byrne v. Montgomery &c. R., 19 Pa. Super. 531; Coll v. Easton Transit Co., 180 Pa. St. 618; s. c. 37 Atl. Rep. 89. Whether a car was stopped in a negligent manner: Patterson V. Townsend, 91 Iowa 725; s. c. 59 N. W. Rep. 205; Green v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 42 App. Div. (N. Y.) 160; s. c. 58 N. Y. Supp. 1039. Whether it was negligence to run a car without a fender: Henderson v. Durham Traction Co., 32 N. C. 779; s. c. 44 S. E. Rep. 598. Whether it was negligence to allow an obstruction near a car: West Chicago St. R. Co. v. McNulty, 64 Ill. App. 549; s. c. 1 Chic. L. J. Wkly. 373. Whether it was negligence to obstruct a street without warning: Thomas V. Consolidated Traction Co., 62 N. J. L. 36; s. c. 6 Am. Neg. Rep. 122; 42 Atl. Rep. 1061. Whether various injuries to pedestrians were caused by negligence: Canfield v. North Chicago St. R. Co., 98 Ill. App. 1; Curtin v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 22 Misc. (N. Y.) 83; s. c. 48 N. Y. Supp. 581; aff'g s. c. 21 Misc. (N. Y.) 788; 47 N. Y. Supp. 1134; Gildea v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 171 N. Y. 660; s. c. 64 N. E. Rep. 1121; aff'g s. c. 58 App. Div. (N. Y.) 528; 69 N. Y. Supp. 568 [distinguishing Cowan v. Third Ave. R. Co., 1 N. Y. Supp. 612]: Jones v. Union R. Co., 18 App. Div. (N. Y.) 267; s. c. 46 N. Y. Supp. 321; Cleary v. Pittsburg &c. Trac. Co., 179 Pa. St. 526; s. c. 36 Atl. Rep. 323. Whether various injuries to children were caused by negligence: Chicago City R. Co. v. Tuohy, 196 Ill. 410; s. c. 63 N. E. Rep. 997; aff'g s. c. 95 Ill. App. 314; Gray v. St. Paul City R. Co., 87 Minn. 280; s. c. 91 N. W. Rep. 1106; Farris v. Cass Ave. &c. R. Co., 80 Mo. 325; Davidson v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 75 App. Div. (N. Y.) 426; s. c. 78 N. Y. Supp. 352; Fullerton v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 37 App. Div. (N. Y.) 386; s. c. 55 N. Y. Supp. 1068; Gumby v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 171 N. Y. 635; s. c. 63 N. E. Rep. 1117; aff'g s. c. 65 App. Div. (N. Y.) 38; 72 N. Y. Supp. 551; Hodges v. Westcott Exp. Co., 39 App. Div. (N. Y.) 545; s. c. 57 N. Y. Supp. 318; Larkin v. United Traction Co., 76 App. Div. (N. Y.) 238; s. c. 78 N. Y. Supp. 538; Beard v. Reading City &c. R. Co., 3 Pa. Super. 171; s. c. 39 W. N. C. (Pa.) 356; Evers v. Philadelphia Traction Co., 176 Pa. St. 376; s. c. 35 Atl. Rep. 140; Walbridge v. Schuylkill Elec. R. Co., 190 Pa. St. 334; s. c. 42 Atl. Rep. 689; 43 W. N. C. (Pa.) 560; Richmond Traction Co. v. Wilkinson, 101 Va. 394; s. c. 43 S. E. Rep. 622. Whether injuries to track-workers were caused by negligence: Daum v. North Jersey St. R. Co., 69 N. J. L. 1; s. c. 54 Atl. Rep. 221. Whether the frightening of horses was caused by negligence: Oates v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 168 Mo. |