Legal Opinion · Dissent

Wallenburg v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided April 23, 1910No. 15,879Published

Appeal from tlie district court for Douglas county: Alexander 0. Troup, Judge.

1DissentBarnes, J.

I am unable to concur in the majority opinion in this case, for the. reason that to my mind the undisputed facts show such gross contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff as should prevent a recovery. The effect of this opinion is to overrule Omaha & R. V. R. Co. v. Talbot, 48 Neb. 627; Guthrie v. Missouri P. R. do., 51 Neb. 746; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Pollard, 53 Neb. 730; Brady v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 59 Neb. 233, and many other cases. By our judgment we make a railroad company an absolute insurer of the safety of pedestrians at its grade crossings.

I am of opinion…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Omaha & Republican Valley Railway Co. v. TalbotNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. PollardNebraska Supreme Court · 1898
  3. Guthrie v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Brady v. Chicago, Saint Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1899

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

Powered by the Exa API