Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/882

TUCKEB V. DUNCAN. 867 �TuflKEE W,:PUNCAN. {Circuit Uowt, 8. D. Misisaippi. November Term, 1881.) �1. RAILKOAD CrOSSINGS — RECIPBOCAL DiJTIBS OF TRATELERS and THE Railroad �Company. , ; �When a crossing is dangerous, the duty is impoaed Upon those engaged in con- ducting the engine and trains upon the road, and also upon those desiring to make the crossing, to use every reasonable precaution to avoid a collision ; and the necessity is increased in proportibn to the danger. This duty isrequired equally of both parties. �2. Bamb— DiTTY OF Travbmie. �Where one attempts to, drive his team over a railroad crossing on alevel with the highwaywith Imowledge of its dangerous condition; that a -warehouse formed an obstruction to the sightand sound of a train coming from one direc- tion ; that it was the time for making up a train aud that the locomotive must pass the crossing todoso — he must both look and listen for the approach of the locomotive, and, if need be, stop for that purpose. 8. Railroad Emplotes. �Railroad employes are as worthy of belief as other agents. �At Law. �Humphries & Sykes and Wiley P. Harris, for petitioner. �E. L. Bussell, Peter Hamilton, J. M. Allen and L. Brame, for de- fendant. �HiLL, D. J. This is a compl^int made by the said Tuckerj in which he alleges that on the eleventh day of October, 1880, he was with his wagon, drawn by one horse, crossing the Columbus branch of the Mo- bile & Ohio Eailroad, on St. John street, in the city of Columbus, when, without any carelessness or default upon his part, but by the carelessness and improper conduct alone of the employes operating the engine and train of said receiver, upon said railroad, his wagon was run against and thrown over, by means of which he was thrown from his wagon and received sundry dangerous and severe wounds, endangering his life, greatly disfiguring him, and causing him great bodily pain, for which he claims $25,000 damages as compensation. To the complaint the defendant answers that the injuries complained of were caused by the carelessness and reckless conduct of the petitioner alone, and not by the carelessness or want of skill or misconduct upon the part of his employes, as alleged in the petition. Upon the issue tlius made a large volume of evidence bas been taken and submitted to the court, upon which exhaustive com- ment bas been made by the distinguished counsel on both sides, all of which bas been carefully considered, with the sole view of arriv- ing at a correct conclusion as to whether or not, under the testimony ��� �