Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Grablin
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court of Hall county. Tried below before Harrison, J. The facts are stated in the opinion. The company owes trespassers upon its tracks for right of way but one duty, to-wit, to use all possible efforts to avoid injury to them after they are discovered upon its tracks or right of way. If it has performed that duty, it is not liable to them for any injury they may sustain.
Read the full summary
Error from the district court of Hall county. Tried below before Harrison, J. The facts are stated in the opinion. The company owes trespassers upon its tracks for right of way but one duty, to-wit, to use all possible efforts to avoid injury to them after they are discovered upon its tracks or right of way. If it has performed that duty, it is not liable to them for any injury they may sustain. Neglect by the company to perform duties it may have owed to others, as, for, instance, its neglect to keep a vigilant outlook for obstructions, is a duty it owes to its passengers; but trespassers…
1Opinion of the Court
Ragan, C.
On July 12, 1888, Samuel Grablin, a boy about nine years old, while trespassing on the track of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company — hereinafter called the “railroad company” — was struck and killed by-engine of said railroad company.
This is a suit for damages brought against the railroad company by the boy’s administrator. There was a verdict and judgment for the administrator, and the railroad company prosecutes error.
The averments of negligence in the petition are as follows: That plaintiff is the father of the deceased, and at the time of his death lived on a farm…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Isabel v. Hannibal & St. Joseph RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Keyser v. Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1887
- Meeks v. Southern Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Huff v. AmesNebraska Supreme Court · 1884
- T. & P. R'y Co. v. O'DonnellTexas Supreme Court · 1882
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Gunn v. Ohio River R.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1896
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. WymoreNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- Langazo v. San Joaquin Light & Power Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1939
- Conway v. Monidah TrustMontana Supreme Court · 1913
- Omaha & Republican Valley Railway Co. v. TalbotNebraska Supreme Court · 1896
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.