§ 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 questions.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 Ill. 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 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 v. 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. V. Whether a car was stopped in a negligent manner: Patterson 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. § 7402. In Cases against Municipal Corporations.-Various classes of cases against municipal corporations where the defendant's negligence was deemed a question of fact, are presented in the margin.3 535; s. c. 68 S. W. Rep. 906; McCann v. Consolidated Traction Co., 59 N. J. L. 481; s. c. 38 L. R. A. 236; 7 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. (N. S.) 280; 36 Atl. Rep. 888. Whether various acts of gripmen, motormen and conductors were negligent: Barry v. Burlington R. &c. Co., 119 Iowa 62; s. c. 95 N. W. Rep. 229; Morrow v. St. Paul City R. Co., 71 Minn. 326; s. c. 73 N. W. Rep. 973; Gray v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 39 App. Div. (N. Y.) 536; s. c. 57 N. Y. Supp. 587; 6 Am. Neg. Rep. 137; Poulsen v. Nassau &c. R. Co., 30 App. Div. (N. Y.) 346; s. c. 51 N. Y. Supp. 933. Injuries from unsafe condition of streets: Flora v. Pruett, 81 Ill. App. 161 (pile of lumber near highway); Paducah R. &c. Co. v. Ledsinger, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 441; s. c. 63 S. W. Rep. 11 (no off. rep.) (abandoned railroad track); Aurora v. Cox, 43 Neb. 727; s. c. 62 N. W. Rep. 66; Schafer v. New York, 154 N. Y. 466; s. c. 48 N. E. Rep. 749; rev'g s. c. 12 App. Div. (N. Y.) 384; 42 N. Y. Supp. 744 (manhole cover projecting several inches above the surface); Twist v. Rochester, 37 App. Div. (N. Y.) 307; s. c. 55 N. Y. Supp. 850 (electric wires); O'Malley v. Parsons, 191 Pa. St. 612; s. c. 43 Atl. Rep. 384; 30 Pittsb. L. J. (N. S.) 21; 44 W. N. C. (Pa.) 307 (caving in of embankments). Injuries from obstructions in streets: Herries v. Waterloo, 114 Iowa 374; s. c. 86 N. W. Rep. 306 (stone in travelled way); Fugate v. Somerset, 97 Ky. 48; s. c. 16 Ky. L. Rep. 807; 29 S. W. Rep. 970 (piles of lumber two and a half feet high and twelve feet long); McDonald v. St. Paul, 82 Minn. 308; s. c. 84 N. W. Rep. 1022 (tree and wire in portion of a boulevard at the intersection of two streets); Fisher v. Mt. Vernon, 41 App. Div. (N. Y.) 293; s. c. 58 N. Y. Supp. 499 (overhanging objects); Higgins v. Brooklyn, 54 App. Div. (N. Y.) 69; s. c. 66 N. Y. St. Rep. 334; Murphy v. Leggett, 164 N. Y. 121; s. c. 58 N. E. Rep. 42; 51 N. Y. St. Rep. 472 (platform projecting five feet over sidewalk); Sauthof v. Providence, 19 R. I. 506; s. c. 35 Atl. Rep. 300 (piles of gravel); Saylor v. Montesano, 11 Wash. 328; s. c. 39 Pac. Rep. 653 (sticks from six inches to four feet in length lying at the side of a public street outside of the usually travelled portion). Injuries from excavations in streets: Houer v. North Tonawanda, 79 Hun (N. Y.) 39; s. c. 61 N. Y. St. Rep. 186; 29 N. Y. Supp. 650; Corbin v. Philadelphia, 195 Pa. St. 461; s. c. 45 Atl. Rep. 1070; 49 L. R. A. 715; Overpeck v. Rapid City, 14 S. D. 507; s. c. 85 N. W. Rep. 990. Injuries caused by failure to erect barriers at dangerous places in the highway: Rosedale v. Cosgrove, 10 Kan. App. 211; s. c. 63 Pac. Rep. 287; Fugate v. Somerset, 97 Ky. 48; s. c. 16 Ky. L. Rep. 807; 29 S. W. Rep. 970; Sutphen v. Hedden, 67 N. J. L. 324; s. c. 51 Atl. Rep. 721 (whether barriers were sufficient); Van Gaasbeck v. Saugerties, 82 Hun (N. Y.) 415; s. c. 63 N. Y. St. Rep. 838; 31 N. Y. Supp. 354; Grace &c. Co. v. Kennedy, 99 Fed. Rep. 679; s. c. 40 C. C. A. 69. Injuries from defective sidewalks: Denver v. Hyatt, 28 Colo. 129; s. c. 63 Pac. Rep. 403 (opening twenty inches long and about four inches wide); Shumway v. Burlington, 108 Iowa 424; s. c. 79 N. W. Rep. 123 (ice and dangerous slope); Hartford v. Graves, 8 Kan. App. 677; s. c. 57 Pac. Rep. 133 (inequalities of six inches or more); Topeka v. Noble, 9 Kan. App. 171; Keen v. Havre de Grace, 93 Md. 34; s. c. 48 Atl. Rep. 444 (hole); Lamb v. Worcester, 177 Mass. 82; s. c. 58 N. E. Rep. 474 (projecting hinges nearly two inches high); Loan v. Boston, 106 Mass. 450; O'Neil v. Hanscom, 175 Mass. 313; Redford v. Woburn, 176 Mass. 520; s. c. 57 N. E. Rep. 1008 (shut-off box); Shipley v. Proctor, 177 Mass. 498; s. c. 59 N. E. Rep. 119 (ice); Welsh v. Amesbury, 170 Mass. 437; s. c. 49 N. E. Rep. 735; Kopelka v. Bay City, 125 Mich. 625; s. c. 7 Det. Leg. N. 642; 84 N. W. Rep. 1106 (hole); Williams v. West Bay City, 126 Mich. 156; s. c. 7 Det. Leg. N. 757; 85 N. W. Rep. 458 (de $7403. In Actions against the Master by his Servant.-The defendant's negligence was deemed a question for a jury where it depended upon the determination of the questions noted in the cases in the margin.* pression from two to five inches deep); Leonard v. Butte, 25 Mont. 410; s. c. 65 Pac. Rep. 425 (slippery walk); Sweeny v. Butte, 15 Mont. 274; s. c. 39 Pac. Rep. 286 (trap in sidewalk); Archer v. Mt. Vernon, 57 App. Div. (N. Y.) 32; s. c. 67 N. Y. St. Rep. 1040 (water-pipe projecting four inches above the surface); Hamilton v. Buffalo, 55 App. Div. (N. Y.) 423; s. c. 66 N. Y. Supp. 423; 66 N. Y. St. Rep. 990 (ice); Kane v. Yonkers, 43 App. Div. (N. Y.) 599; Morris v. Saratoga Springs, 55 App. Div. (N. Y.) 263; s. c. 66 N. Y. Supp. 821; O'Hara v. Brooklyn, 57 App. Div. (N. Y.) 176; s. c. 68 N. Y. St. Rep. 210 (snow); Henry v. Williamsport, 197 Pa. St. 465; s. c. 47 Atl. Rep. 740 (descent of seven and one-quarter inches, with a slope of nineteen inches between the two levels); Kane v. Philadelphia, 196 Pa. St. 502; s. c. 46 Atl. Rep. 893 (sidewalk giving way); Nudd v. Landsdowne, 7 Del. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 170; Dallas v. Jones, 93 Tex. 38; Laurie v. Ballard, 25 Wash. 127; s. c. 64 Pac. Rep. 906 (hole); Ziegler v. Spokane, 25 Wash. 439; s. c. 65 Pac. Rep. 752 (holes); Arthur v. Charleston, 46 W. Va. 88; s. c. 32 S. E. Rep. 1024 (tripping and falling over a rope stretched across sidewalk); Rhyner v. Menasha, 107 Wis. 201; s. c. 83 N. W. Rep. 303 (hole). Injuries from defective crosswalks: Morrison v. Madison, 96 Wis. 452; s. c. 71 N. W. Rep. 882. Injuries from sewers and ditches: Fuchs v. St. Louis, 133 Mo. 168; s. c. 31 S. W. Rep. 115; 34 S. W. Rep. 508; Beatrice v. Leary, 45 Neb. 149; S. c. 63 N. W. Rep. 370. Injuries from water: Sundheimer v. New York, 176 N. Y. 495; s. c. 68 N. E. Rep. 867; rev'g s. c. 77 App. Div. (N. Y.) 53; 79 N. Y. Supp. 278 (flood from negligent construction of sewer); Rumsey v. Philadelphia, 171 Pa. St. 63; s. c. 37 W. N. C. (Pa.) 281; 32 Atl. Rep. 1133 (leak in water pipe). 'Whether the master had provided his servants with a reasonably safe place in which to work: Jones v. Alabama Mineral R. Co., 107 Ala. 400; s. c. 18 South. Rep. 30 (applying brake to hand-car); Robinson Min. Co. v. Tolbert, 132 Ala. 462; s. c. 31 South. Rep. 519 (rock in quarry charged with dynamite); Russell v. Pacific Can Co., 116 Cal. 527; s. c. 48 Pac. Rep. 616 (exhaust steam-pipe in a privy vault); Colorado Electric Co. v. Lubbers, 11 Colo. 505; s. c. 19 Pac. Rep. 479; 7 Am. St. Rep. 255 (electric current turned on while an employé was handling wires); Chicago &c. R. Co. v. Clark, 11 Ill. App. 104 (railroad platform); Illinois &c. R. Co. v. Gilbert, 157 Ill. 354; s. c. 41 N. E. Rep. 724 (run over by a train); Illinois Steel Co. v. Ostrowski, 93 Ill. App. 57; s. c. aff'd, 194 Ill. 376; 62 N. E. Rep. 822 (bolt breaking and falling on plaintiff); Lake Erie &c. R. Co. v. Wilson, 87 Ill. App. 360; Leach v. Durkin, 98 Ill. App. 415 (fall of a brick from a building); Rock Island Sash &c. Works v. Pohlman, 99 Ill. App. 670; Ross v. Shanley, 86 Ill. App. 144; s. c. aff'd, 185 Ill. 390; 56 N. E. Rep. 1105; Swift v. O'Neill, 187 Ill. 337; s. c. 58 N. E. Rep. 416; aff'g s. c. 88 Ill. App. 162 (run into by a truck in a dimly lighted hall); Western Stone Co. v. Muscial, 96 Ill. App. 288; s. c. aff'd 196 Ill. 382; 63 N. E. Rep. 664; Romona Oolitic Stone Co. v. Phillips, 12 Ind. App. 57; s. c. 39 N. E. Rep. 96; Brann v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 53 Iowa 595; s. c. 36 Am. Rep. 243 (car out of repair); Taylor v. Star Coal Co., 110 Iowa 40; s. c. 80 N. W. Rep. 249 (falling of a roof in a mine); Parkinson Sugar Co. v. Riley, 50 Kan. 401; s. c. 31 Pac. Rep. 1090 (uncovered cistern); Walker v. Scott, 10 Kan. App. 413; s. c. 61 Pac. Rep. 1091 (trench); Barber v. Cincinnati &c. R. Co., 14 Ky. L. Rep. 869; s. c. 21 S. W. Rep. 340 (struck by rapidly moving train); Bouck v. Jackson Sawmill Co., 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1542; s. c. 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 602; 49 S. W. Rep. 472 (no off. rep.) (wire rope which pulled loose from its fastenings); Breckinridge &c. Syndicate v. Murphy, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 915; s. c. 38 S. V. W. Rep. 700 (no off. rep.) (roof of mine); Reliance Textile &c. Works v. Martin, 65 S. W. Rep. 809; s. c. 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1625 (employé stepping into uncovered vat of hot dye); Brady v. Norcross, 174 Mass. 442; s. c. 54 N. E. Rep. 874 (breaking of staging); Connolly Waltham, 156 Mass. 368; s. c. 31 N. E. Rep. 302 (trench); Dacey v. Old Colony R. Co., 153 Mass. 112; s. c. 26 N. E. Rep. 437 (car too near main track); Daley v. Boston &c. R. Co., 147 Mass. 101; s. c. 6 N. Eng. Rep. 349; 16 N. E. Rep. 690 (hold of a vessel); Hannah v. Connecticut River R. Co., 154 Mass. 529; s. c. 28 N. E. Rep. 682 (defect in roadbed); Mahoney v. Dore, 155 Mass. 513; s. c. 30 N. E. Rep. 366 (snow and ice on stairs); Prendible v. Connecticut River Man. Co., 160 Mass. 131; s. c. 35 N. E. Rep. 675 (falling of a staging); Scullane v. Kellogg, 169 Mass. 544; s. c. 48 N. E. Rep. 622 (employé injured while in an elevator-well); Toomey v. Donovan, 158 Mass. 232; s. c. 33 N. E. Rep. 396; Turner v. Boston &c. R. Co., 158 Mass. 261; s. c. 33 N. E. Rep. 520 (unblocked frog); Zimmerman v. Detroit &c. Fibre Co.. 113 Mich. 1; s. c. 4 Det. Leg. N. 208; 71 N. W. Rep. 321 (platform for use in oiling an overhead shaft); Johnson v. St. Paul &c. R. Co., 43 Minn. 53; s. c. 44 N. W. Rep. 884; 30 Cent. L. J. 462; 41 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 293 (signalpost near track); Lawson v. Truesdale, 60 Minn. 410; s. c. 62 N. W. Rep. 546 (snow and ice in railroadyard); Martin v. North Star Iron Works, 31 Minn. 407 (smoke-stack near track); Mullin v. Northern Mill Co., 53 Minn. 29; s. c. 55 N. W. Rep. 1115 (dangerous machinery); Namyst v. Batz, 85 Minn. 366; s. c. 88 N. W. Rep. 991 (plank tipping up); Sherman v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 34 Minn. 259 (uncovered frog); Doyle v. Missouri &c. Trust Co., 140 Mo. 1; s. c. 41 S. W. Rep. 255 (failing to nail or otherwise fasten a plank used as a turning-out place upon a runway scaffold); Hamilton v. Rich Hill &c. Min. Co., 108 Mo. 364; s. c. 18 S. W. Rep. 977 (failure to block between switch-rails); Murphy v. Wabash R. Co., 115 Mo. 111; s. c. 21 S. W. Rep. 862 (cattleguard fence near track); Belleville Stone Co. v. Mooney, 60 N. J. L. 323; s. c. 38 Atl. Rep. 835; s. c. aff'd, 61 N. J. L. 253; 39 L. R. A. 834; 39 Atl. Rep. 764; Cavanagh v. O'Neill, 161 N. Y. 657; s. c. 57 N. E. Rep. 1106; aff'g s. c. 50 N. Y. Supp. 207; 27 App. Div. (N. Y.) 48 (dress forms subject to be toppled over, which fell and injured salesgirl); Cheevers v. Ocean S. S. Co., 26 Misc.. (N. Y.) 193; s. c. 55 N. Y. Supp. 445 (hole in gangway); Cullen v. Norton, 52 Hun (N. Y.) 9; s. c. 22 N. Y. St. Rep. 221 (unexploded blast); Diehl v. Robinson, 72 App. Div. (N. Y.) 19; s. c. 76 N. Y. Supp. 252 (workman killed by descent of elevator); Food v. Western Union Tel. Co., 39 N. Y. St. Rep. 674; s. c. 15 N. Y. Supp. 400 (defect in crossarm of telegraph-pole); Hesketh v. New York &c. R. Co., 37 App. Div. (N. Y.) 78; s. c. 55 N. Y. Supp. 898 (erection of structure near track as part of a block system of signaling); Kline v. Abrahams, 48 App. Div. (N. Y.) 522; s. c. 62 N. Y. Supp. 857 (slipping on a stairway); Kranz v. Long Island R. Co., 123 N. Y. 1; s. c. 25 N. E. Rep. 206; 33 N. Y. St. Rep. 46 (underground trench); McGovern v. Central Vermont R. Co., 123 N. Y. 280; s. c. 25 N. E. Rep. 373; 33 N. Y. St. Rep. 416 (grain-elevator); McLaughlin v. Eidlitz, 50 App. Div. (N. Y.) 518; s. c. 64 N. Y. Supp. 193 (scaffolding); Mickee v. Walter A. Wood Mowing &c. Co., 70 Hun (N. Y.) 456; s. c. 53 N. Y. St. Rep. 689; 24 N. Y. Supp. 501; Skaarup v. Stover, 56 Hun (N. Y.) 86; s. c. 29 N. Y. St. Rep. 647; 9 N. Y. Supp. 92 (log on side of hill); Wilson v. Troy, 135 N. Y. 96; s. c. 18 L. R. A. 449; 32 N. E. Rep. 44; 48 N. Y. St. Rep. 364; 31 Am. St. Rep. 817; 41 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 517 (failure to guard excavation); Witkowski v. George W. Carter &c. Co., 60 App. Div. (N. Y.) 577; s. c. 70 N. Y. Supp. 232; Young v. Syracuse &c. R. Co., 45 App. Div. (N. Y.) 296; s. c. 61 N. Y. Supp. 202 (switch); Conelly v. Boothby Hotel Co., 190 Pa. St. 553; s. c. 6 Am. Neg. Rep. 191; 42 Atl. Rep. 1024 (employé stepping into hot water); Cougle v. McKee, 151 Pa. St. 602; s. c. 31 W. N. C. (Pa.) 261; 25 Atl. Rep. 115 (scaffold); Kyle v. Southern Electric Light &c. Co., 174 Pa. St. 570; s. c. 34 Atl. Rep. 323 (injury to child from falling of electric-light pole while being lowered by employés of defendant); Reese v. Clark, 198 Pa. St. 312; s. c. 47 Atl. Rep. 994 |