Legal Opinion

Kincaid v. Oregon Short Line, Ry. Co.

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided February 22, 1892PublishedCited by 15 opinions

Multnomah county: E. D. Shattuck, Judge. Defendant appeals.

1Opinion of the CourtLord, J.

This is an action by an employé against his employer to recover damages for an injury received by reason of an alleged omission to have one of the draw-bars of one of the cars comprising the train safely keyed while engaged in the work for which he was employed. The particular facts alleged, upon which a recovery is sought, are: “That on said date the defendant failed to have the draw-bars which connected said cars comprising said train properly inspected, but on the contrary allowed the said train to be made up without having one of the draw-bars in one of the cars comprising same safely…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hughes v. Cincinnati, &c., RailroadCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1891
  2. Knahtla v. Oregon Short Line, etc., Ry. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. WagnerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1885
  4. Spicer v. South Boston Iron Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Meehan v. Great Northern Railway Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1904
  2. Nutt v. Southern Pacific Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Green v. SansomSupreme Court of Florida · 1899
  4. Duntley v. InmanOregon Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Manning v. Portland Ship Building Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1908

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API