Legal Opinion · Dissent

Incret v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad

Montana Supreme Court

Decided December 27, 1938No. 7,792Published

1Dissent

Mr. Justice Angstman:

I dissent. I think my associates are in error in holding, as they do, that plaintiff is precluded from recovery, as a matter of law, by his contributory negligence. In my opinion, that question, under the evidence, was for the jury.

It is elementary that in determining whether a case should be taken from the jury, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, and if, when so viewed, there is room for different conclusions by reasonable men, then the case should go to the jury. The rule was stated by this court in Jarvella v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.,…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Baltimore & Potomac R. Co. v. LandriganSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
  2. Brommer v. Pennsylvania R.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1910
  3. Pennsylvania Co. v. StegemeierIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
  4. New York Cent. & H. R. R. v. MaidmentCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1909
  5. Mellon v. KellyMontana Supreme Court · 1935

9 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