...NEGLIGENCE — CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE. —Contributory negligence is never a question of law unless the facts are such that all reasonable men must draw the same inference therefrom. ( Eichhorn v. Missouri. K. & T. Ry. Co., [Mo.] 32 3. W. Rep. 993.) RAILROAD COMPANIES...

...differ upon the question as to whether there was negligence or not, the determination of the matter is for the jury. It is only where the facts are such...negligence is ever considered as one of law for the court. ... As the question of negligence on the part of the defendant was one of fact for the jury to determine,...

...differ upon the question as to whether there was negligence or not, the determination of the matter is for the jury. It is only where the facts are such...negligence is ever considered as one of law for the court." We think the question involved was fairly covered by the charge of the court, and thus properly left...

...personal injuries, alleged to have been caused through negligence, the facts shown by the evidence are such that all reasonable men must draw the same conclusion from them, the question of negligence becomes one of law for the court. . A person, in crossing a street having...

...case was such as would be expected of reasonably prudent men under a similar state of affairs. When u given state of facts is such that reasonable men may...reasonable men must draw the same conclusion from thorn that the question of negligence Is ever considered as one of law for the court." These questions...

...differ upon the question as to whether there was negligence or not, the determination of the matter is for the jury. It is only where the facts are such...negligence Is ever considered as one of law for the court." See authorities there cited. Also Railroad Co. v. Foley, 3 CCA 589, 53 Fed. Rep. 462. It is next claimed...

...whether there was negligence or not, the determination of the mutter is for the jury. It is only whore the facts are such that all reasonable men must draw...negligence is ever considered as one of law for the court." We deem it unnecessary to cite other authorities. There are reported cases almost without number which...

...differ upon the question as to whether there was negligence or not, the determination of the matter is for the Jury. It Is only where the facts are such...that the question of negligence is ever considered one of law, for the court." In the case of Kailroad Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall. 657, 663, 664, we think...

...guilty of contributory negligence was clearly a question for the jury. As said by Mr. Justice Lámar, it is only where the facts are such that all reasonable...draw the same conclusion from them that the question becomes one for the court. Here the defendant was clearly guilty of gross negligence which resulted...

...sound verdict." In the case of Railway Co. v. Ivés, 144 US 409, 417, 12 Sup. Ct. 67'J, the court said: "It is only where the facts are such that all reasonable men must draw the same conclusions from them that the question of negligence is ever considered one of law for the court."...