Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Caspar v. Lewin

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided June 11, 1910No. 16,504Published

Appeal from Wyandotte court of common pleas. Hugh J. Smith, judge.

1ConcurrencePorter, J.

(concurring specially) : I concur in the result and in holding that contributory negligence is not a defense in an action of this character. The only reasonable construction that can be given to the language of the act in my opinion is to hold that it enjoins a positive duty upon the employer, to which neither contributory negligence nor assumption of risk is a defense. I' dissent, however, from that portion of the opinion and the corresponding portion of the syllabus which overrules the case of Henschell v. Railway Co., 78 Kan. 411. I think that the words “with safeguards as required by this…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Henschell v. Union Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1908

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

Powered by the Exa API