(243)


§  95  STREET  RAILWAY  ACCIDEnSTT  LAW,  [Ch.  6

It  is  not  negligence,  as  a  matter  of  law,  not  to  have  a  head-
liglit  on  a  car,^^^  and  the  mere  fact  that  a  man  walking  in
a  city  street  is  run  over  raises  no  presumption  of  negli-
gence.^-'*

In  certain  miscellaneous  cases,  negligence  has  been  held
to  be  for  the  jury,  as  where  a  driver  was  injured  while  at-
tempting to  lead  a  frightened  horse  across  a  street  railway
track,^^*  where  a  man  about  to  board  a  car  was  struck  by
another  passing  car,^^^  and  where  a  passenger  was  carried
beyond  his  destination,  and  the  conductor  told  him  to  walk
back  on  the  track,  and  he  was  run  over  on  a  trestle.^^*

Where  a  passenger  was  boarding  a  car,  and  was  thrown  off
by  its  sudden  start,  and  was  run  over  by  another  car,  there
was  held  to  be  no  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  driver  of
the  second  car;^^'^  and  where  a  passenger  who  was  drunk  or
sick  was  helped  from  a  car  at  a  terminus,  and  twenty  min-
utes later  was  run  over  by  another  car,  there  was  held  to  be  no
causal  connection,  and  therefore  no  cause  for  action.^'*
Where  a  traveler  saw  the  car,  it  is  error  to  charge  that  the
failure  of  the  gripman  to  warn  crossing  pedestrians  of  the
car's  approach  would  make  the  company  liable.^^®  Where
a  woman  was  struck  by  a  runaway  team  of  horses,  and  no
excuse  was  offered,  it  was  held  that  a  verdict  for  the  plain-
tiff would  not  be  disturbed.^^"

212  Omaha  St.  Ry.  Co.  v.  Clair,  39  Neb.  454.
213  Chicago  City  Ry.  Co.  v.  Lewis,  5  111.  App.  242.
2"  Deuster  v.  Milwaukee  St.  Ry.  Co.,  89  Wis.  191.
