Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Howard
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of Adams county. Tried below before Beall, J. The facts are stated by the commissioner. We contend that under the evidence and the findings of the jury the plaintiff below was not entitled to recover anything.
Read the full summary
Error from the district court of Adams county. Tried below before Beall, J. The facts are stated by the commissioner. We contend that under the evidence and the findings of the jury the plaintiff below was not entitled to recover anything. It is clear that the accident was caused solely by reason of the fact that the plaintiff himself left the coal car too close to the switch track, and beiDg thus the efficient cause of the accident himself, he cannot recover for the result" of the injury. If plaintiff was free from fault he cannot recover, because the brakemen were fellow-servants. (Newman…
1Opinion of the Court
Ryan, C.
1. This action was brought by the defendant in error in the district court of Adams county for the recovery of damages alleged to have been sustained by defendant in error solely through the negligence of the plaintiff in error. In the petition two railroad companies were named as defendants, but as these designations seem to refer to but one company, we shall hereafter speak of the defendants as a single entity. Plaintiff in the district court was a brakeman on a freight train, of which the runs, always made in daylight, were between Hastings and Lincoln. On June 29, 1891,-this…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Atchison Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. PlunkettSupreme Court of Kansas · 1881
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. LandauerNebraska Supreme Court · 1893
- Hewitt v. EisenbartNebraska Supreme Court · 1893
- Houston & Tex. Cent. R'y Co. v. GilmoreTexas Supreme Court · 1884
- Besel v. . N.Y.C. H.R.R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1877
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Powers v. Massachusetts Homœopathic HospitalCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1901
- Brown v. La Société Française De Bienfaisance MutuelleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Barden v. . R. R.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
- Haggerty v. St. Louis, Keokuk & Northwestern RailroadMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Tutino v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1933
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.