p. 667question of contributory negligence was one of fact for the jury; also held (Johnson, C.), that the rule, requiring the absence of contributory negligence, was not established out of any tenderness for the negligent infliction of an injury, but to discourage carelessness; and that, in determining whether the fault exists, the condition of the person whose acts are in question should he considered; and that the old, the lame, the infirm or the young are entitled to have their condition and ability, mental and physical, considered in diminution of the degree of care exacted of them; that no greater degree of care was required than the capacity of the person would allow him to exert.
William G. Wallace for the appellant.
Geo. N. Kennedy for the respondent.
Johnson and Reynolds, CC., read for affirmance.
All concur, upon the ground that the question of contributory negligence should have been submitted to the jury; but do not consider the question discussed by Johnson, 0., as to how far infancy or infirmity may he considered in passing upon the question of contributory negligence.
Order reversed and judgment absolute directed against defendant.