...the evidence established the fact that the train was then within the range of his vision, it might be held as a matter of law that he was guilty of contributory negligence, though he testified that he looked constantly while passing the open space and did not see the train....

...struck by coal-cars being backed on one of the tracks, of the approach of which no warning was given, it cannot be held as a matter of law that he was guilty of contributory negligence, (p. 860.) Action for personal injuries. The plaintiff, riding in an automobile, approached a grade...

...the evidence established the fact that the train was then within the range of his vision, it might be held as a matter of law that he was guilty of contributory negligence though he testified that he looked constantly while passing the open space and did not see the train....

...danger of which he had not been warned, before it was necessary for him to act, it can not be said as a matter of law that he was guilty of contributory negligence in not noticing that they would meet, the draw-bar being pushed back under the cars when they came together....

...conditions surrounding him. His foot slipped and was drawn in between the chain and the sprocket wheel. Held, as a matter of law, that he was guilty of contributory negligence. 4. In such case it was no excuse for the injured employee that in going up the stairway he would have...

...conditions surrounding him. His foot slipped and was drawn in between the chain and the sprocket wheel. Held, as a matter of law, that he was guilty of contributory negligence. 4. In such case it was no excuse for the Injured employee that In going up the stairway he would have...

...could not go side by side. The open trap door was only forty-one inches back of the swing door. Surely it cannot be held as a matter of law that he was guilty of negligence in backing into it. The case of Lehman v. Amsterdam C. Co. 146 Wis. 213, 131 1ST. W. 362,...

...could not go side by side. The open trap door was only forty-one inches back of the swing door. Surely it cannot be held as a matter of law that he was guilty of negligence in backing into it. The case of Lehman v. Amsterdam C. Co. 146 Wis. 213, 131 K W. 362, is...

...exercised the care of an ordinarily prudent man under similar conditions, but we can not declare as a matter of law that he was guilty of contributory negligence in attempting to cross the tracks as he did. Leaving out of consideration the possible evidence that might...

...ordinary prudence would have turned to the right as plaintiff did, and therefore it cannot be said as a matter of law that he was guilty of contributory negligence in doing so. If the jury in considering this case and arriving at a verdict took, or might have taken,...