French v. Taunton Branch Railroad
Cases that cite this one
45 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Marnan v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. (Iowa 1912)
- Scott v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. (Ark. 1906)
- Richmond v. Chicago & West Michigan Railway Co. (Mich. 1891)
- Hinckley v. Cape Cod Railroad (Mass. 1876)
- Lindsey v. Pacific Electric Railway Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1931)
- Guy v. Des Moines City Railway Co. (Iowa 1920)
- Crawford v. Michigan Central Railroad (Mich. 1919)
- Ward v. Inter-Island Steam Navigation Co. (Haw. 1915)
- Weck v. Reno Traction Co. (Nev. 1915)
- Farris v. . R. R. (N.C. 1909)
- Dieckmann v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. (Iowa 1909)
- St. Louis & S. F. R. v. Cundieff (8th Cir. 1909)
- Toledo, St. L. & W. R. v. Bartley (6th Cir. 1909)
- Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Lynn (Ind. 1908)
- Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway Co. v. Rosborough (Ind. Ct. App. 1907)
- Wilson v. . R. R. (N.C. 1906)
- Tiffin v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. (Ark. 1906)
- Wilson v. Railroad (N.C. 1906)
- Marden v. Portsmouth, Kittery & York Street Railway (Me. 1905)
- Stoy v. Louisville, Evansville & St. Louis Consolidated Railroad (Ind. 1903)
- Ames v. Waterloo & Cedar Falls Rapid Transit Co. (Iowa 1903)
- Mitchell v. Illinois Cent. R. (La. 1903)
- Chicago & Erie Railroad v. Thomas (Ind. 1900)
- Baker v. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis Railroad (Mo. 1898)
- Stevens v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1896)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This case was properly submitted to the jury. The circumstances were peculiar. As the plaintiff approached the crossing, a freight train was passing; and after the last car had passed, she attempted to cross. She was driving with care and watching the road ; she heard no signal, received no warning that other cars were coming, and saw no flagman. At a point forty-six feet from the centre of the track, she could have seen up the track forty-six feet; at thirty feet from the crossing, she could have seen the track for a long distance. She did not look in that direction when she reached those points, and gave as a reason that she did not suppose that one train would follow so closely upon another. She was struck by some cars which had been purposely detached from the train that had passed, and which, without warning of their approach, followed the train over the crossing. Of the negligence of the defendant, upon her evi
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.