Southern Kansas Railway Co. v. Griffith
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Douglas District Court. The plaintiff was employed as a switchman in the yard of the defendant company at Cherry Vale. While so employed, he was injured by having his arm run over and crushed. This action was brought to recover damages therefor.
Read the full summary
Error from Douglas District Court. The plaintiff was employed as a switchman in the yard of the defendant company at Cherry Vale. While so employed, he was injured by having his arm run over and crushed. This action was brought to recover damages therefor. The averments of the petition charging negligence are as follows: “Said plaintiff further says, that on or about the 17th day of May, 1887, this plaintiff was in the employ of the said defendant as a yard man in the railroad yard of the said defendant at said city of Cherry Vale, and was then and there engaged and employed in and about the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Allen, J.:
A single question only needs to be considered, as that, in the opinion of a majority of the court, is decisive of the case. Is the specific negligence found by the jury *433sufficiently charged in the petition to warrant a judgment in favor of the plaintiff because of it? The jury, in answer to the third question submitted by the plaintiff, say that the negligence of the defendant was “in failing 'to notify yard master of the repairs that were then being made in their yard.” There is no direct averment in the petition that it was the duty of the…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad v. OwensCourt of Appeals of Kansas · 1897
- Pullin v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1915
- Greco v. Western States Portland Cement Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1911
- St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. ElrodSupreme Court of Kansas · 1908
- Hutchinson Lumber & Planing-mill Co. v. BakerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1906
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.