Kinghorn v. Pennsylvania R.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtChase, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above).
Since the jury found for the plaintiff in ;b,oth eases, we should resolve conflicts in the evidence in the light most favorable to him and accept as established all the essential facts which the plaintiff’s evidence, if not contradicted, would fairly prove to be true. In doing so, we must come quickly to the conclusion that the engine did not signal with bell or whistle until just before the collision and when no signal by it could have been of the slightest aid to the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendant was palpably negligent, and that such negligence…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. IvesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Railroad Company v. HoustonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. GoodmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Schofield v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. GentrySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Parrent v. Mobile Ohio Railroad Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1934
- McNatt v. Wabash Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1937
- Monforton v. Northern Pacific Railway CompanyMontana Supreme Court · 1960
- Bloecher v. DuerbeckSupreme Court of Missouri · 1936
- Audirsch v. Texas & Pacific Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1952
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.