Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/379

 PART IV.] LIABILITY FOR TORTS OF AGENTS. [§ 376. § 375. Further, an act will not be negligent if at the time the person doing it was not a free agent ; 1 or was a little child. This applies to persons who in a panic caused by an imminent collision on a railroad leap from the cars ; 3 or to any person who instinctively does a sudden act to escape an imminent peril. 3 In regard to a child, the caution and discretion required are according to its age and capacity. 4 But in some instances the negligence of the persons having him in charge is held to bar a suit by his family, or his personal representatives, or perhaps by the child himself. 5 § 376. Kegarding the burden of proof where contributory negligence is relied on by a defendant, the weight of authority is, that contributory negligence is matter pr oof? n ° of defence to be alleged and proved by the defend- ant. 6 But a number of decisions hold a contrary doctrine. 7 0**^ Compare Cleveland, C. and C. R. R. Co. v. Crawford, 24 O. St. 631. If a railroad crosses a common road on the same level, those travelling on either have a legal right to pass over the point of crossing, and to require due care from those travelling on the other to avoid collisions. The train has the preference and right of way; but is bound to give due warning. Continental Improvement Co. v. Stead, 95 U. S. 161. See Railroad Co. v. Houston, ib. 697; Shaw v. Bos- ton and W. R. R. Co., 8 Gray (Mass.), 45; Black v. Burlington, etc., Ry. Co., 38 Iowa, 515; Nor. Pac. R. R. Co. v. Freeman, 174 U. S. 379. Compare B. & P. R. R. Co. v. Cumberland, 176 U. S. 232. 1 See Wharton on Neg., 2d ed. §§ 301 et seq. 2 Frink v. Potter, 17 111. 406. 8 Larrabee v. Sewall, 66 Me. 376 ; Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Carr, 35 Ind. 510 ; Stokes v. Saltonstall, 13 Pet. 181. See Eckert v. Long Island R. R. Co., 43 N. Y. 502. 4 Railroad Co. v. Gladmon, 15 Wall. 401 ; Same v. Stout, 17 Wall. 657 ; Chicago and A. R. R. Co. v. Becker, 76 111. 25; Daniels v. Clegg, 28 Mich. 33 ; Dowd v. Chicopee, 116 Mass. 93 ; Wendell v. New York Cent, and H. R. R. R. Co., 91 N. Y. 420. 5 Fitzgerald v. St. Paul, etc., R'y Co., 29 Minn. 336. Here the authorities are very con- flicting. The question is discussed at length, with a full citation of au- thorities in Wharton on Neg., 2d ed. §§ 310 et seq. 6 Railroad Co. v. Gladmon, 15 Wall. 401 ; Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Horst, 93 U. S. 291 ; Durant v. Pal- mer, 29 N. J. L. 544 ; Penn. Canal Co. v. Bentley, 66 Pa. St. 30 ; Cleve- 7 Murphy v. Deane, 101 Mass. 457 ; 248 ; Warner v. New York Cent. R Lake Shore, etc., R. R. Co., v. Miller, 25 Mich. 274; Daniels v. Clegg, 28 Mich. 33 ; Tolman v. Syracuse, etc., R. R. Co., 98 N. Y. 198 ; Button v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 18 N. Y. R. Co., 44 N. Y. 465 ; Owens v. Rich- mond, etc., R. R. Co., 88 N. C. 502. See Wheelock v. Boston and Albany R. R. Co., 105 Mass. 203. 359