therefrom. And it is an appreciation of or opportunity to appreciate the peril that bars him of recovery.15 Mere knowledge of the offending instrumentality does not constitute contributory negligence.16 For example, a person walking or driving on the highway is not precluded from recovering for injuries produced by a defect therein merely by reason of the fact that he knew of the defect.17 But while an appreciation of the threatened peril is essential to destroy one's right of recovery, it is by no means true that the plaintiff must have been able to foresee the full result of his act or omission. He is not entitled to recover merely because the injury was greater than he anticipated.18 When, however, the specific evidence submitted only goes to the extent of establishing knowledge of the defect, the question of his contributory negligence should not be withdrawn from the jury. Indeed, it can only be in rare cases if ever that the question becomes one of law. In other words, it is for the jury to determine whether knowledge of the physical characteristics of the offending instrumentality constituted a sufficient warning of peril to the plaintiff.19

Discovery and Avoidance of Danger

98. Generally. It may be stated as a general proposition of law that every person is bound to the exercise of vigilance 20 with a

15. Choctaw, etc., R. Co. v. Jones, 77 Ark. 367, 92 S. W. 244, 7 Ann. Cas. 430, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 837 and note; Nave v. Flack, 90 Ind. 205, 46 Am. Rep. 205.

16. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Brown, 229 U. S. 317, 33 S. Ct. 840, 57 U. S. (L. ed.) 1204; Albion v. Hetrick, 90 Ind. 545, 46 Am. Rep. 230; Fitzgerald v. Connecticut River Paper Co., 155 Mass. 155, 29 N. E. 464, 31 A. S. R. 537; Dundas v. Lansing, 75 Mich. 499, 42 N. W. 1011, 13 A. S. R. 457, 5 L.R.A. 143; Johnson v. E. C. Clark Motor Co., 173 Mich. 277, 139 N. W. 30, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 830; Swadley v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 118 Mo. 268, 24 S. W. 140, 40 A. S. R. 366.

Note: 4 L.R.A. 240.

17. Montgomery v. Wright, 72 Ala. 411, 47 Am. Rep. 422; Nave v. Flack, 90 Ind. 205, 46 Am. Rep. 205; Albion v. Hetrick, 90 Ind. 545, 46 Am. Rep. 230; Dundas v. Lansing, 75 Mich. 499, 42 N. W. 1011, 13 A. S. R. 457, 5 L.R.A. 143; Dewire v. Bailey, 131 Mass. 169, 41 Am. Rep. 219; MeQuil

lan v. Seattle, 10 Wash. 464, 38 Pac. 1119, 45 A. S. R. 799.

18. Twist v. Winona, etc., R. Co., 39 Minn. 164, 39 N. W. 402, 12 A. S. R. 626; Johnston v. New Omaha, etc., Electric Light Co., 78 Neb. 24, 110 N. W. 711, 113 N. W. 526, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 435.

19. Williams v. Sleepy Hollow Min. Co., 37 Colo. 62, 86 Pac. 337, 11 Ann. Cas. 111, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1170; Fitzgerald v. Connecticut River Paper Co., 155 Mass. 155, 29 N. E. 464, 31 A. S. R. 537; Dundas v. Lansing, 75 Mich. 499, 42 N. W. 1011, 13 A. S. R. 457, 5 L.R.A. 143.

20. The Continental Improv. Co. v. Stead, 95 U. S. 161, 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 403; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Landrigan, 191 U. S. 461, 24 S. Ct. 137, 48 U. S. (L. ed.) 262; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Buckner, 28 Ill. 299, 81 Am. Dec. 282; Weller v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 164 Mo. 180, 64 S. W. 141, 86 A. S. R. 592: North Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Heilema, 49 Pa. St. 60, 88 Am. Dec. 482; McQuillan v. Seattle, 10

view to the discovery of perils by which he may be menaced,1 and their avoidance after they have been ascertained. The acts required to be done with a view to the preservation of safety will depend, necessarily, upon the circumstances of the case, the standard of care being that exercised by ordinarily prudent persons under like circumstances. A duty rests upon everyone to exercise his intelligence; and when a situation suggests investigation and inspection in order that its dangers may fully be disclosed he is under the obligation of investigating and inspecting. The presumption is that one will see and understand all perils that a prudent and intelligent person of the same age and experience, and with the same. capacity for estimating their significance, would see and understand. and if he neglects to observe and consequently remains in ignorance of discoverable dangers, the fault is deemed to be his own." He will be held to have had knowledge of all such dangers as may be shown to have been obvious or patent. A ladder is a simple contrivance; the danger attending its use is a matter of almost common knowledge; and it is easy for a person using it to inform himself whether it is spiked to prevent its slipping. Hence it is error to charge the jury that the defendant, in the exercise of ordinary care, ought to have apprehended that some person might not make the requisite exami

Wash. 464, 38 Pac. 1119, 45 A. S. R. N. W. 1045, 23 A. S. R. 393, 9 L.R.A. 799. 807.

1. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Gentry, 163 U. S. 353, 16 S. Ct. 1104, 41 U. S. (L. ed.) 186; American Brewing Ass'n v. Talbot, 141 Mo. 674, 42 S. W. 679, 64 A. S. R. 538; Weller v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 164 Mo. 180, 64 S. W. 141, 36 A. S. R. 592.

As to contributory negligence in walking through a doorway leading to a place of danger, see 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 246 note.

2. Southern Pac. Co. v. Pool, 160 U. S. 438, 16 S. Ct. 338, 40 U. S. (L. ed.) 485; Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Freeman, 174 U. S. 379, 19 S. Ct. 763, 43 U. S. (L. ed.) 1014; Evans v. Adams Exp. Co., 122 Ind. 362, 23 N. E. 1039, 7 L.R.A. 678; Garrity v. Detroit Citizen's St. R. Co., 112 Mich. 369, 70 N. W. 1018, 37 L.R.A. 529; Haverly v. State Line, etc., R. Co., 135 Pa. St. 50, 19 Atl. 1013, 20 A. S. R. 848; McQuillan v. Seattle, 10 Wash. 464, 38 Pac. 1119, 45 A. S. R. 799; Wright v. Mulvaney, 78 Wis. 89, 46

Seeing a peril in time to avoid its effect but failing to avoid it is contributory negligence. Ann. Cas. 1912D 142 note.

3. Evans v. Adams Exp. Co., 122 Ind. 362, 23 N. E. 1039, 7 L.R.A. 678. As to acts done in emergencies, see infra, par. 111.

4. Continental Improv. Co. v. Stead, 95 U. S. 161, 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 403; McQuillan v. Seattle, 10 Wash. 464, 38 Pac. 1119, 45 A. S. R. 799.

5. Note: 11 Ann. Cas. 211.

6. Consolidated Gas Co. v. Getty, 96 Md. 683, 54 Atl. 660, 94 A. S. R. 603; Hotchkin v. Erdrich, 214 Pa. St. 460, 63 Atl. 1035, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 506.

7. The Union Pacific R. Co. v. MeDonald, 152 U. S. 262, 14 S. Ct. 619, 38 U. S. (L. ed.) 434.

8. Note: 1 Ann. Cas. 778.

An open visible risk is such a one as would in an instant appeal to the senses of an intelligent person. Gentz

nation, and therefore might be injured in consequence of its condition.9

99. Exercise of Senses of Sight and Hearing.-Ordinary prudence requires every person who is in the full enjoyment of his faculties of hearing and seeing, before attempting a dangerous act or operation, to exercise them for the purpose of discovering and avoiding the peril 10 He is bound to look 11 and listen,12 and if he fails to do so he will be barred of recovery for injuries that he might have discovered and avoided. For example, to stand in the carriageway of a public street at night, engaged in conversation, heedless of horses. and vehicles that are passing, is held to be such negligence as will prevent recovery for injuries resulting from being thrown down.

kow v. Portland R. Co., 54 Ore. 114, 102 Pac. 614, 135 A. S. R. 821.

9. Borden v. Daisy Roller Mill Co., 98 Wis. 407, 74 N. W. 91, 67 A. S. R. 816. See supra, par. 27.

10. Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Crawford, 24 Ohio St. 631, 15 Am. Rep. 633. As to crossing accidents, see RAILROADS; STREET RAILWAYS.

11. Continental Improv. Co. v. Stead, 95 U. S. 161, 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 403 and note; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Houston, 95 U. S. 697, 24 U. S. (Ļ. ed.) 542; Schofield v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 114 U. S. 615, 5 S. Ct. 1125, 29 U. S. (L. ed.) 224; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Freeman, 174 U. S. 379, 19 S. Ct. 763, 43 U. S. (L. ed.) 1014; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Buckner, 28 Ill. 299, 81 Am. Dec. 282; Heinmiller v. Winston, 131 Ia. 32, 107 N. W. 1102, 117 A. S. R. 405, 6 L.R.A. (N.S.) 150 and note; Bourrett v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 152 Ia. 579, 132 N. W. 973, 36 L.R.A.(N.S.) 957; Dyerson v. Union Pac. R. Co., 74 Kan. 528, 87 Pac. 680, 11 Ann. Cas. 207 and note, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) 132 (crossing railroad tracks); Butterfield v. Western R. Corp., 10 Allen (Mass.) 532, 87 Am. Dec. 678; Messenger v. Dennie, 137 Mass. 197, 50 Am. Rep. 295; Benjamin v. Holyoke St. R. Co., 160 Mass. 3, 35 N. E. 95, 39 A. S. R. 446; Weller v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 164 Mo. 180, 64 S. W. 141, 86 A. S. R. 592; Gonzales v. New York, etc., R. Co., 38 N. Y. 440, 98 Am. Dec. 58; Tucker v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 124 N. Y. 308, 26 N. E. 916, 21 A. S. R. 670; Smith v. Southern R. C. L. Vol. XX.-8.

Pack. Co., 58 Ore. 22, 113 Pac. 41, Ann. Cas. 1913A 434 and note; North Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Heilema, 49 Pa. St. 60, 88 Am. Dec. 482; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Weber, 76 Pa. St. 157, 18 Am. Rep. 407; Dickson v. Hollister, 123 Pa. St. 241, 16 Atl. 484, 10 A. S. R. 533; Aiken v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 130 Pa. St. 380, 18 Atl. 619, 17 A. S. R. 775; Carson v. Federal St., etc., R. Co., 147 Pa. St. 219, 23 Atl. 369, 30 A. S. R. 727, 15 L.R.A. 257; Thompson v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 215 Pa. St. 113, 64 Atl. 323, 7 Ann. Cas. 351; Mack v. South Bound R. Co., 52 S. C. 323, 29 S. E. 905, 68 A. S. R. 913, 40 L.R.A. 679; Dimuria v. Seattle Transfer Co., 50 Wash. 633, 97 Pac. 657, 22 L.R.A.(N.S.) 471.

Notes: 90 Am. Dec. 780; 116 A. S. R. 125; 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 246.

12. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Houston, 95 U. S. 697, 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 542; Birmingham Southern R. Co. v. Lintner, 141 Ala. 420, 38 So. 363, 109 A. S. R. 40, 3 Ann. Cas. 461; Pilmer v. Boise Traction Co., 14 Idaho 327, 94 Pac. 432, 125 A. S. R. 161, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 254; Weller v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 164 Mo. 180, 64 S. W. 141, 86 A. S. R. 592; Gonzales v. New York, etc., R. Co., 38 N. Y. 440, 98 Am. Dec. 58; Tucker v. New York Cent., etc., R. Co., 124 N. Y. 308, 26 N. E. 916, 21 A. S. R. 670; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Weber, 76 Pa. St. 157, 18 Am. Rep. 407; Schum v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 107 Pa. St. 8, 52 Am. Rep. 468; Aiken v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 130 Pa. St. 380, 18 Atl. 619, 17 A. S. R. 775; 113

by a wagon the driver of which did not see the person injured. 18 Again, it has been held that if a consignor selects for the transportation of goods sold a car which, by reason of defects discernible upon. inspection, is unsuitable for that particular class of goods, the carrier is not liable for a loss of the goods due to the unsuitableness and defective condition of the car.14 If the ends of security will be served, both senses should be relied upon, as a rule, 15 but where a danger is such that either sight or hearing should in the ordinary course. of events disclose its presence, it is not indispensable that a person both look and listen.16 If for any reason a person is disabled to see or hear, he is bound to take extraordinary precautions in other ways. A deaf man must exercise his sense of sight with redoubled. vigilance.18 And when the vision is obscured by darkness acts must be done with greater circumspection than when the sense of sight may be relied on.19 If an injured person has disabled himself to see or hear he will be held in fault and without right of redress.20 Accordingly it has been held that one who is injured by an obstruction in a highway against which he fell cannot maintain an action if it appears that he was riding with great violence and want of ordinary care, without which he might have seen and avoided the obstruction. Again, if the view of a traveler on the highway approaching

Thompson v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 215 Pa. St. 113, 64 Atl. 323, 7 Ann. Cas. 351; Mack v. South Bound R. Co., 52 S. C. 323, 29 S. E. 905, 68 A. S. R. 913, 40 L.R.A. 679; Seefeld v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 70 Wis. 216, 35 N. W. 278, 5 A. S. R. 168.

17. Reynolds v. Los Angeles Gas, etc., Co., 162 Cal. 327, 122 Pac. 962, Ann. Cas. 1913D 34, 39 L.R.A. (N.S.) 896; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Howard, 124 Ind. 280, 24 N. E. 892, 19 A. S. R. 96, 8 L.R.A. 593; Jones v. Toronto, etc., R. Co., 25 Ont. L. Rep. 158, Ann.

Notes: 90 Am. Dec. 780; 116 A. S. Cas. 1912C 1068 and note. R. 125; 24 U. S. (L. ed.) 161.

13. Evans v. Adams Exp. Co., 122 Ind. 362, 23 N. E. 1039, 7 L.R.A. 678.

14. Frohlich v. Pennsylvania Co., 138 Mich. 116, 101 N. W. 223, 110 A. S. R. 310, 4 Ann. Cas. 1140.

15. Schofield v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 114 U. S. 615, 5 S. Ct. 1125, 29 U. S. (L. ed.) 224; Rumpel v. Oregon Short Line, etc., R. Co., 4 Idaho 13, 35 Pac. 700, 22 L.R.A. 725; Cincinnati, etc., R. Co. v. Howard, 124 Ind. 280, 24 N. E. 892, 19 A. S. R. 96, 8 L.R.A. 593: Ernst v. Hudson River R. Co., 35 N. Y. 9, 90 Am. Dec. 761 and note; Carson v. Federal St., etc., R. Co., 147 Pa. St. 219, 23 Atl. 369, 30 A. S. R. 727, 15 L.R.A. 257.

Notes: 41 L.R.A. (N.S.) 193; 5 Ann. Cas. 76.

18. Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Buckner, 28 Ill. 299, 81 Ain. Dec. 282; Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Hammett, 220 Ill. 9, 77 N. E. 72, 5 Ann. Cas. 73 and note; Smith v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 146 Ky. 568, 143 S. W. 1047, 41 L.R.A. (N.S.) 193 and note; Jones v. Toronto, etc., R. Co., 25 Ont. L. Rep. 158, Ann.

Cas. 1912C 1068 and note.

19. Steger v. Immen, 157 Mich. 494, 122 N. W. 104, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 246 and note.

20. Dimuria v. Seattle Transfer Co., 50 Wash. 633, 97 Pac. 657, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 471; Seefeld v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 70 Wis. 216, 35 N. W. 278, 5 A.

16. Ernst v. Hudson River R. Co., S. R. 168. 35 N. Y. 9, 90 Am. Dec. 761. 1. Butterfield v. Forrester, 11 East

a railroad crossing is so obstructed that he cannot see an approaching train in time to stop his team before colliding with it, and if he is unable to hear the approaching train when his vehicle is in motion, whether by reason of the force and direction of the wind or of noises in the vicinity, whether made by his own vehicle or by other causes, ordinary care requires him to stop while he may do so, and listen for the train. But a person may be so situated as to be disabled without fault on his part to look or listen for perils by which he may be menaced. His attention may have been distracted to legitimate objects. It has been said that contributory negligence will not in all cases be imputed, as a matter of law, to a person who receives an injury from a danger, simply from the fact that it might have been seen, because the nature of his duties, or the surrounding circumstances, may be such as to distract his attention to other objects." It is only in a plain case that a failure to look or listen can be said to be negligence as a matter of law, the issue in this respect being ordinarily for the jury's determination."

100. Measure of Diligence to Discover and Avoid Peril.-As with the defendant in an action for injuries, the plaintiff if he would escape the imputation of fault, whereby his action is defeated, must show that at the time of the injury he was in the exercise of ordinary or reasonable care. The degree of care depends upon the circumstances,10 and is measured by the diligence that prudent persons

60, 10 Rev. Rep. 433, 19 Eng. Rul. Cas. 189.

2. Seefeld v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 70 Wis. 216, 35 N. W. 278, 5 A. S. R. 168.

3. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Everett, 152 U. S. 107, 14 S. Ct. 474, 38 U. S. (L. ed.) 373.

4. Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Everett, 152 U. S. 107, 14 S. Ct. 474, 38 U. S. (L. ed.) 373; Gentzkow v. Portland R. Co., 54 Ore. 114, 102 Pac. 614, 135 A. S. R. 821.

5. Gentzkow v. Portland R. Co., 54 Ore. 114, 102 Pac. 614, 135 A. S. R. 821.

v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 130 Pa. St. 380, 18 Atl. 619, 17 A. S. R. 775.

7. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Landrigan, 191 U. S. 461, 24 S. Ct. 137, 48 U. S. (L. ed.) 262; Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Hammett, 220 Ill. 9, 77 N. E. 72, 5 Ann. Cas. 73 and note; Benjamin v. Holyoke St. R. Co., 160 Mass. 3, 35 N. E. 95, 39 A. S. R. 446; Newhard v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 153 Pa. St. 417, 26 Atl. 105, 19 L.R.A. 563. See infra, par. 140, 141.

8. See supra, par. 18 et seq.

9. Magee v. North Pac. Coast R. Co., 78 Cal. 430, 21 Pac. 114, 12 A. S. R. 69; Sullivan v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 6. Pilmer v. Boise Traction Co., 14 39 La. Ann. 800, 2 So. 586, 4 A. S. R. Idaho 327, 94 Pac, 432, 125 A. S. R. 239; Butterfield v. Western R. Corp., 161, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 254; Heinmiller 10 Allen (Mass.) 532, 87 Am. Dec. v. Winston, 131 Ia. 32, 107 N. W. 1102, 678; Russell v. Monroe, 116 N. C. 720, 117 A. S. R. 405, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 150; 21 S. E. 550, 47 A. S. R. 823; Haverly Butterfield v. Western R. Corp., 10 v. State Line, etc., R. Co., 135 Pa. St. Allen (Mass.) 532, 87 Am. Dec. 678; 50, 19 Atl. 1013, 20 A. S. R. 848. Schum v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 107 10. Butterfield v. Western R. Corp., Pa. St. 8, 52 Am. Rep. 468; Aiken 10 Allen (Mass.) 532, 87 Am. Dec.