Weeks v. Great Northern Railway Co.
North Dakota Supreme Court
From a judgment of the District Court of Bottineau County, Burr, J., defendant appeals. The bulletining of this train on the day in question was not within the scope of the employment of the operator and has no legal effect in so far as the company is concerned.
Read the full summary
From a judgment of the District Court of Bottineau County, Burr, J., defendant appeals. The bulletining of this train on the day in question was not within the scope of the employment of the operator and has no legal effect in so far as the company is concerned. Kinnomen v. Great Northern, 34 N. D. 556. Plaintiff had no right to rely on such late train not coming in ahead of time, even though so reported and even though he was a passenger, and defendant did not owe him in this case the extraordinary duties a carrier owes a passenger, and under such circumstances no recovery could be had. 59…
1Per curiam
On the morning of October 19, 1917, the plaintiff, who lived at Bottineau, went to Rugby on defendant’s passenger train, intending to return to Bottineau on the afternoon train. Bottineau is located on a branch of the defendant’s railway which connects with the main line at Rugby, and there is only one passenger train in each direction on each day. On October 19th the regular scheduled time for the departure of the train known as No. 213 from Rugby to Bottineau was at 4:15 p. m. At about 4 p. m., plaintiff, in company with one Thomas Hennessy, sheriff of Bottineau county, went to the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Stephens v. Oklahoma City Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Tuttle v. Moody SonTexas Supreme Court · 1906
- Ingraham v. Pullman Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
- I. G.N.R.R. Co. v. AddisonTexas Supreme Court · 1906
- Wilcox v. Southern Ry.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 1912
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- In re Gen. Motors LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 2018