Abbott v. Kansas City Elevated Railway Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. William B. Teasdale, Judge. (1) Neither the evidence of the plaintiff nor the whole evidence, authorize a recovery. Culhane v. Railroad, 60 N. Y. 137; Railroad v. Manly, 47 Mich. 309; Catclicart v. Railroad, 19 Mo. App. 118; Henze v. Railroad, 71 Mo. 639; Bennett v. Railroad, — Mo. App. —. (1) Defendant wrongly contends that the evidence in this case does not authorize a recovery as a matter of lav?.
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
This is an action for personal injury received by plaintiff from a collision with one of defendant’s streets cars, occurring on Quindaro boulevard, at about one hundred feet east of Tenth street in Kansas City, Kansas. The judgment of the trial court was for plaintiff.
The evidence shows an undoubted case of contributory negligence on part of the plaintiff. [McG-auley v. Railroad, 179 Mo. 583; Theobald v. Transit Co., 191 Mo. 395.] Though this is not admitted by him, it is practically conceded that the ground upon which he seeks to uphold the judgment is based upon the humanitarian doctrine…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Theobald v. St. Louis Transit Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Markowitz v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1905
- Tanner v. Missouri Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Sharp v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- McGauley v. St. Louis Transit Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1904
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Williams v. Kansas City Elevated Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Abbott v. Kansas City Elevated Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1911