McGhee v. Gaines
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 33. — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL EROM WOODEOBD CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The evidence heard by the jury demonstrated the fact that the killing was unavoidable and not the result of any negligence.
Read the full summary
Case 33. — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL EROM WOODEOBD CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The evidence heard by the jury demonstrated the fact that the killing was unavoidable and not the result of any negligence. After the defendant’s servants in charge of the train have purged their consciences by testifying that the proper care was taken and they are unimpeached the force of the statute is exhausted, and it becomes indispensable to the plaintiff’s right to recover to show the existence of negligence in fact. (Ky. Cent. R. Co. v. Talbot, 78 Ky., 621; St. L. & N. R. Co. v. Lampkin, 5 Ky. L. R., 777; Grundy v.…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HAZELRIGG
delivered the opinion of the couet.
The first paragraph of the appellee’s petition sought a recovery of appellants as receivers of the East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company, by reason of the fact *184That they failed to erect or maintain a good and sufficient cat lie guard on the railroad in tbeir charge where it crosses the public road at Bonita Station in Woodford county, by reason of which failure a horse and mule belonging to the appellee strayed from the public road onto and along the track, over the right of way of the railway, and were run over and killed.
A…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kentucky Central R. R. v. TalbotCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1880
3Cited by11 opinions
- Mullen & Haynes Co. v. CrispCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1925
- Remley v. I. C. R. R.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913
- Williams' Exr. v. ChamberlainCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1906
- Parrish v. Louisville & N. R. R.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1907
- Crawford v. Southern RailwayCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1912
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.