Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Yost
Nebraska Supreme Court
Error from the district court for York county. Tried below before Good, J. This case has been before this court before (56 Nebr., 439), and the judgment was reversed for the reason that the testimony of the defendant in error showed contributory negligence on his part. Upon the trial, resulting in the verdict which we now seek to reverse, the judgment rests on substantially the same evidence.
Read the full summary
Error from the district court for York county. Tried below before Good, J. This case has been before this court before (56 Nebr., 439), and the judgment was reversed for the reason that the testimony of the defendant in error showed contributory negligence on his part. Upon the trial, resulting in the verdict which we now seek to reverse, the judgment rests on substantially the same evidence. Upon the former hearing this case was not reversed because the plaintiff’s own evidence showed that he was guilty of contributory negligence, but because of the uncontradicted testimony that the accident…
1Opinion of the CourtNorval, C. J.
This cause was before us at a prior term, and an opinion reversing the judgment and remanding the cause is reported in 56 Nebr., 439. On the second trial plaintiff again recovered judgment, which is before us for review. The former judgment was reversed for the reason that the evidence of plaintiff conclusively showed that he was guilty of contributory negligence, which was the proximate cause of the injury. On the second trial the evidence was more definite and explicit regarding several matters discussed in the former opinion. For instance, there is now a conflict of evidence as to whether…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Wallenburg v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1910
- Rickert v. Union Pacific RailroadNebraska Supreme Court · 1916
- Hughes v. Underwood Typewriter Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1916
- J. K. Armsby Co. v. Raymond Bros.-Clarke Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1912