Louisville & N. R. R. v. Harrod
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 102 — Action by Robert Haueod against Louisville & N. R. R. Co. fob Personal Injuries. APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIECÍUIT COURT. Judgment for’Plaintiff and Defendant Appeals.
Read the full summary
Case 102 — Action by Robert Haueod against Louisville & N. R. R. Co. fob Personal Injuries. APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIECÍUIT COURT. Judgment for’Plaintiff and Defendant Appeals. POINTS AND AUTHORITIES. 1. The court erred in overruling defendant’s demurrer to the petition. 2. The proof showed without any contradiction that plaiintiff must have known all about whatever defect there might ba/ve been in the derrick complained of, having used it for years, and admitted his thorough familiarity with it under oath on. the wiitness stand, and he is thereby precluded from any recovery in this case.…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion op the court by
JUDGE N UNN
Reversing.
The appellee filed this action in the Franklin Gircuit Court, among other things alleging, in substance, that while, he was engaged in delivering a load of tobacco- to the appellant, a common carrier for hire, at its depot in Frankfort, Ky., and while lifting the hogshead from the wagon by means of a derrick, he was struck upon the- face and chin with the handle thereof, which cut through Ms lower lip and chin, knocked out several of Ms teeth, cut his tongue, greatly disfiguring him, destroying his speech, and otherwise permanently injuring him, and…
2Cited by21 opinions
- Louisville, Henderson & St. Louis Railway Co. v. RobertsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1911
- Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. BeaucondCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1920
- Blue Grass Traction Co. v. InglesCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1910
- Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. King's Admr.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909
- Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. DeAtleyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1914
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.