Wright,  J.  It  is  not  now  claimed,  as  it  was  on  the  motion  for  a
nonsuit,  that  the  evidence  failed  to  show  negligence  on  the  part  of
the  defendants.  Indeed,  a  grosser  case  of  careless  conduct  is  seldom
presented  to  a  court  and  jury.  The  train  in  which  the  plaintiff  was
a  passenger  had  been  run  on  the  switch  at  Bergen,  to  await  a  train
from  the  west  which  was  due  there.  After  waiting  some  fifteen
minutes  the  train  was  irregularly  started,  the  conductor  getting  on
the  engine.  It  was  a  dark  and  foggy  night.  The  train  had  pro-
ceeded some  forty  rods  when  the  western  train  was  seen  approach-
ing at  a  rate  of  speed  of  about  twenty-five  miles  to  the  hour.  An
effort  was  made,  by  breaking  up  and  reversing  the  engine,  to  get
the  up  train  back  on  the  switch,  but  before  this  could  be  effected  a
collision  of  the  trains  occurred.  The  case  then  was,  that,  on  a  dark
and  foggy  night,  trains  of  the  defendants  running  in  opposite  direc-
tions, out  of  time,  and  one  of  them,  at  least,  at  an  unusual  rate  of
speed,  near  a  station,  run  into  each  other,  occasioning  destruction
of  property  and  perilling  the  lives  of  the  passengers.  No  casualty
can  occur  on  a  railroad  which  manifests  grosser  carelessness  than  a
collision  of  trains  which  are  running  towards  each  other,  out  of
time,  and  at  a  rate  of  speed  which  prevents  their  being  stopped  in
season.     And  that  was  just  this  case.
But  it  is  insisted  that,  although  the  defendants'  negligence  caused
the  injury  complained  of,  the  plaintiff  should  have  been  nonsuited,
because  his  careless  conduct  contributed  to  produce  it.  The  mis-
conduct alluded  to  is,  that,  upon  seeing  the  approaching  train  and


632  CAKRIEKS   OF   PASSENGERS.
