Witty v. C., O. & S. W. R. R.
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 5 — PETITION OEDINAET APPEAL FROM OHIO CIRCUIT COURT. .1. The lower court erred in ordering a special verdict only. It is a right inherent in juries, when questions of fact are to be tried by them, to review all the facts and find for plaintiff or defendant, according to the right. (Civil Code, section 327.) .2. The court abused its discretion in propounding unnecessary and irrelevant questions.
Read the full summary
Case 5 — PETITION OEDINAET APPEAL FROM OHIO CIRCUIT COURT. .1. The lower court erred in ordering a special verdict only. It is a right inherent in juries, when questions of fact are to be tried by them, to review all the facts and find for plaintiff or defendant, according to the right. (Civil Code, section 327.) .2. The court abused its discretion in propounding unnecessary and irrelevant questions. In directing special verdicts the court should shape the questions so as to meet the issues in a plain way. (Berry v. Pusey, 80 Ky., 169.) ■’3. The court should, in connection with the questions…
1Opinion of the Court
CHIEE JUSTICE HINES
delivered the otihiou oe the court.
This is an action to recover damages for an injury received by appellant through the alleged willful and gross negligence -of appellee while appellant was in its employ as brakeman. Appellee denied any kind of negligence, and pleaded contributory negligence on the part of appellant. On application of appellee, the jury were required to answer certain questions, in the nature of a special verdict, and at the same time appellant also propounded numerous questions which were answered by the jury; but the-court, on the application of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Louisville, Cincinnati & Lexington R. R. v. Case's administratorCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1873
3Cited by2 opinions
- East Tennessee Telephone Co. v. JeffriesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913
- Crescent Stave Co. v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1918