This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1921 edition. Excerpt: ... was kept for the crossing, and an attempt to stop the train was made 'as soon as the automobile was discovered approaching the track, the testimony being in conflict as to the rate of speed of the automobile, it is improper to instruct the jury to return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The material conflicts in the testimony make it a question of fact for the jury to decide whether or not the defendant railroad company was guilty of negligence. 2. Rsmnoaos. Fiftccn miles an hour when approaching corporate limits not negligence per se. It is not negligence per so for a train to run at a rate of fifteen miles an hour just before it enters the corporate limits of a municipality. 3. R.-11_no, ns. Sim miles an hour statute-inapplicable outside municipal limits. Section 4043, Code 1906 (section 6667, Hemingway's Code), making railroad companies liable for injuries resulting from the running of trains within a municipality at a rate of speed exceeding six miles an hour, has no application where the injury was inflicted outside of the municipal limits, although it may be impossible to reduce the speed of the train to six miles an hour when it enters the municipal limits. 4. R.m, m.os. Reasonable lookout and speed required at crossing. On approaching a frequently used crossing it is the duty of the servants of the railroad company to use reasonable care and diligence in maintaining a proper lookout, and to approach the crossing at a reasonable rate of speed, and in this case these were questions of fact to be decided by the jury under the conflicting testimony. 5. RAILROADS. Proximatc cause of accident held question for the jury. It was also a question of fact for the jury to decide whether or not the negligence of the servants of...