1. Negligence (§ 87*) — Contributory Negligence — Care Required as Against Negligence oe Another — Mental Capacity.

In determining the question of the contributory negligence of a plaintiff injured, primarily, through the negligence of defendant, plaintiff’s want of mental capacity may be shown and considered, and he can only toe held to the exercise of such faculties as he is endowed with by nature to appreciate and guard against the danger.

[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Negligence, Cent. Dig. § 118; Dec. Dig. § 87. *)

2. Street Hah,roads (§§ 98, 117*) — -Injury to Pedestrian — Contributory Negligence.

Plaintiff, crossing a street on which there were two street railroad tracks near the middle of a block, after passing around a car standing on the track nearest to her, was struck and injured by a car on the other track moving in the opposite direction. She had seen the car approaching, but at a distance of about 400 feet, and there was evidence tending to show that it was running at twice its lawful speed, which fact she did not know. Hold, that she had the right to assume that it was not running at an unlawful speed and could not he held chargeable with contributory negligence as a matter of law.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Street Railroads, Cent. Dig. §§ 204-208, 239-257; Dec. Dig. §§ 98, 117.*]

3. Street Railroads (§ 98*) — Injury to Pedestrian — Contributory Negligence.

A pedestrian in crossing a street railway track is not a trespasser on the right of way of the street, railroad company, nor bound by any strict rule of law, as when he approaches a steam railroad crossing, to stop, look, and listen, nor to take special precautions to determine whether there is danger in going upon the track.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Street Railroads, Cent. Dig. §§ 204-208; Dec. Dig. § 98.*]