Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. McGraw
Supreme Court of Colorado
Appeal from the District Court of Arapahoe County. Action for personal injuries. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Hayt
delivered tlie opinion of the court.
Appellee, Leonard McGraw, was an employé of the appellant company at the time of receiving the injury for which damages were recovered in the court below. The evidence shows that the Railroad Company, at the time and for sometime prior thereto, was using certain side tracks in the Denver yards for the repair of its cars, etc. These side tracks were six in number and were connected with the main track at both the east and west ends.
The repairs that were done upon these side tracks were designated as “light repairs or monkey-wrench work,” the modus operandi…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Southern Pacific Co. v. PoolSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Lord v. Pueblo Smelting & Refining Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1888
- Colorado Midland R'y Co. v. O'BrienSupreme Court of Colorado · 1891
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. BellNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
- Woodbury v. City of AnokaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. BeazleySupreme Court of Florida · 1907
- Headley v. Denver & Rio Grande RailroadSupreme Court of Colorado · 1915
- Denver City Tramway Co. v. GustafsonColorado Court of Appeals · 1912
- City of Pueblo v. SmithSupreme Court of Colorado · 1914
- Denver City Tramway Co. v. GustafsonColorado Court of Appeals · 1912
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.