Show I DUTY OF Judge Die D fin int in of Strut Str Oar MM MI and Id the P Public u bile St Louis Mo March HI In tw Ute United States court Ourt of appeals an In spin opinion ion handed banded down by Judge J Thayer concurred in b by Judge taid Caldwell Caidwell well defines the rights and prIvileges privilege aI of pedestrians pedestrian I and vehicles upon street railway tracks and add the duties of motormen in ID running their ears The plaIntiff in the case cue whose iI ole cle had been ben and aad the theo occupants U injured set ft forth that the motorman was ada guilty of negligence n and the de I fen set t up the claim that the plaintiff j I was waa Wa guilty of contributory negligence This was wu the main question at Issue ue In Inthe inthe the appeal Judge Thayer held that a motorman is l under the Ram aam obligations to exer xer exercise else cise j ordinary are an ant i prudence so IW as asto a ato asto I to avoid and Injuring InJun persons non as these persons are to exercise flare re rent not notto I Ito to iet in the way wy of street cars can so aa as to tobe tobe I be run over and injured I He says M pedestrians and vehicles vehicle have havea bava a right to o cross eroes the tracks of street treet railways at any point besides beles the rep regu regular lar crowing and aud to t u use w the tracks for any distance for a matter of or eM I convenience where they de di not 1 Interfere with or obstruct the I I passage e of ot the cars A motorman he be says saya has no right to act at a t on oft the as u I I gumption that he is iR entitled to a clear Olear cleartra tra k at all times tims and amI that pedestrians 01 or It uri ux a their peril no nu matter at what inconvenience to get eft out of th the way He held that thai the plaintiff in ibis t ease oue had a right to use the street railway tracks as liB a convenience in avoiding avoid the in iii the st m tc tt 11 t and that the mo inn 1001 torman wa v as s built if negLigence in not net taking proper precautions to tn reduce the theof r speed of his hi car oar w when hen he saw the vehicle ve l lele I cle ele HO so as to bring it under such con control control I that he could have ha n avoided voided a the co tin Ion I Judge an horn filed f a rt If dissent dissenting m in ing n II lIt Ut tbt Ul trial judge judee erred er in refusing M tt allow the claim Im of lory negligent e t on 00 the pram plain plaintiff I tiff a part 1 c 4 c |