A series of Minnesota statutes, passed from time to time regulating the conduct of railroads, were united in the laws of 1925. Among other things, this act empowers the Railroad and Warehouse Commission to prescribe and order safety devices at crossings. The plaintiff was injured when the car in which he was riding hit defendant's train, which was already over the crossing. The evidence showed that the street sloped steeply toward the track, but the track was somewhat elevated from the street level at the crossing, so that the lights from the automobile could not shine on the train. Nor could the lights penetrate the darkness and fog. The defendant had erected a reflector-type stop sign and cross-arm warnings on the side of the street, in compliance with the order of the Railroad Commission. Held, mere compliance with the order of the commission does not of itself constitute due care, since the act of 1925 was not intended to be a code for the complete regulation of the conduct of railroads. The question of negligence was one for the jury, to be decided from all the evidence pertaining to the crossing, safety-devices, and weather. Licha v. Northern Pac. Ry., 201 Minn. 427,276 N. W. 813 (1937).
Anthony L. Dividio,
NEGLIGENCE - WHETHER COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY CROSSING REGULATIONS CONSTITUTES DUE CARE ON PART OF RAILROAD,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol37/iss1/19