Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 2).pdf/163

 knowledge perhaps it would have been negligence on his part not to have watched for and guarded against it. But it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was negligent in not looking for an object of the existence of which he had no knowledge, and which he had a legal right to presume did not exist. Railroad travel is so rapid that it has frequently been held negligence for a party, while riding in the cars, to voluntarily expose his person beyond the outer line of the car. In this instance, however, the evidence tends to show that plaintiff was thrown to the south and beyond the line of the car by a sudden lurch of the train as it passed through the switch, caused, doubtless, by the improper speed at which the train was running. We cannot say as a matter of law that this exposure was the result of any negligence on plaintiff's part; and we wish to add here that the law on the subject of contributory negligence, so far as it applies to this case, was very fully and fairly stated in the charge of the learned trial court to the jury, and the evidence nowhere discloses a state of facts that would warrant the court in taking that question from the jury.

Appellant insists that its negligence in maintaining the switch stand was not the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury, and that, as the facts were undisputed, the court should have so instructed the jury as a matter of law; and in support of this contention counsel cite West Mahoney Tp. v. Watson, 116 Pa. St. 344, 9 Atl. Rep. 430, and Railroad Co. v. Trich, 117 Pa. St. 390, 11 Atl. Rep. 627. It is claimed, first, that as it appears that plaintiff was crowded down upon the lower step and into a dangerous position by his fellow workmen upon the platform, therefore the superseding or responsible negligence of a third party intervened between the negligent act of defendant and the injury. As to this point, a perusal of the cases cited at once discloses that they are not applicable to the case at bar. In the first case, action was brought against the township to recover the value of a team by reason of the negligence of the township in suffering its highways to become obstructed. An ash heap had been allowed to accumulate in the highway, which overturned plaintiff's sleigh, and the team ran away. After running some distance, they went upon the railroad track, but