Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. Keller
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 103 — ACTION FOR DAMAGES APPEAL PROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The proof in this case shows clearly that the damage, if any, which resulted to appellee was caused by an act of God and-not by that of appellant.
Read the full summary
Case 103 — ACTION FOR DAMAGES APPEAL PROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The proof in this case shows clearly that the damage, if any, which resulted to appellee was caused by an act of God and-not by that of appellant. Section 784 of the Kentucky Statutes did not require the appellant to .keep a waiting room for the protection of passengers after they had reached the end of their journey. 2. The court erred in refusing to give a peremptory instruction, to find for the defendant. 3. It was also error to give an instruction authorizing a finding of punitive damages. 1. Plaintiff’s injury was not…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE WHITE
delivered tiie opinion oe the court.
The facts of this case appear to be that appellee, in company with some other ladies and a little boy, bought tickets for passage over appellant’s road, at Louisville, to go to Shepherdsville. They were carried the distance, and when the passenger train reached the station at Shepherdsville it was raining and hailing very hard. Appellee was assisted from the passenger train by the brakeman to the ground, and there left. She had no umbrella. It was raining and hailing. Just before this passenger train came to the - depot a freight train of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bubar v. PlantSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1945
- Harris v. Seattle, Renton & Southern Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1911
- Ward v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916