TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Hines v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.

Hines v. Tex. & P. Ry. Co., 119 F. 157 (5th Cir. 1902)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
December 9, 1902
Docket
No. 1,187
Citations
119 F. 15755 C.C.A. 6541902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4659
Syllabus
A, Railroads—Injury at Crossing—Contributory Negligence. The driver of a team who, after crossing a side track filled with box cars, which obstructed the view, drove upon the main track of a railroad 50 feet distant, without looking or listening for a train, was guilty of negligence as matter of law.'
Summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

PER CURIAM.

Fifty feet north of the main track of the Texas ■& Pacific Railway at Pecos City was a side track occupied to the westward of the public crossing with box cars. The plaintiff’s driver, intending to cross both tracks from the northward, stopped, and looked and listened, just behind the box cars, but heard nothing. After safely crossing the side track he attempted to cross the main track, and, although the view of the main track was clear and unobstructed, he neither looked nor listened until it was too late. He was ■certainly guilty of negligence.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1921: 119212026peak 1921 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Testo v. Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co.203 P. 1065 (Idaho 1921)

Most recent

  1. Testo v. Oregon-Washington Railroad & Navigation Co.203 P. 1065 (Idaho 1921)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list