Legal Opinion

Bell v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad

Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976)

Decided October 12, 1926PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion of the Court by

Commissioner Sandidge—

Affirming.

Appellant, William Bell’s administratrix, instituted this action and sought to recover from appellee, Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company and I. H. Mooy, for the death of her intestate, upon the theory that it was caused by tbeir negligence. At tbe conclusion of all the .evidence tbe trial court peremptorily instructed tbe jury to find for appellees. Hence tbe appeal.

Appellant insists that tbe court erred in awarding appellees tbe peremptory instruction. Tbe undisputed facts ar.e these: Three railroad dump cars and a spreader .car bad…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Prestonsburg Superior Oil Gas Co. v. VanceCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1926
  2. Southern Planing Mill v. HebelCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1915

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Consolidated Coach Corporation v. Earl's Adm'rCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1936
  2. Lehman v. PattersonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1944
  3. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. DeakinsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1947

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API