Pugh v. Chesapeake
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 12 — PETITION ORDINARY 1. It is not only the right but the duty of the plaintiff to aver in his petition, stating a single cause of action, every ground for recovery that he has. This necessarily results from the rule, that if the plaintiff in suing upon a cause of action, omits to rely upon any ground of liability, and a trial is had upon the. merits, he is barred in another action from asserting the ground so omitted.
Read the full summary
Case 12 — PETITION ORDINARY 1. It is not only the right but the duty of the plaintiff to aver in his petition, stating a single cause of action, every ground for recovery that he has. This necessarily results from the rule, that if the plaintiff in suing upon a cause of action, omits to rely upon any ground of liability, and a trial is had upon the. merits, he is barred in another action from asserting the ground so omitted. In this case there were two grounds for liability set out in the petition, viz. (1.) that the company negligently failed to have the cars, which appellant was, in…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PAYNTER
dei.ivered the ostnio'n oe the court.
While Pugh was the servant of the defendant company he he lost a leg by a car passing over it. which resulted in the necessary amputation of it.
The action is against the railway company and Brown, Conway and Thornton, respectively conductor, engineer and fireman of the train, a car in which inflicted the injury. It-is charged that the injury was inflicted by “the wanton and gross negligence of all defendants in operating said locomotive engine and cars, and in leaving the locomotive engine *81of said train in charge and control of the fireman of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Barrett v. . the Third Avenue R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. CummingsSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Colegrove v. New York & New Haven RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Cuddy v. HornMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
- Flaherty v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
3Cited by14 opinions
- Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. BeaucondCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1920
- Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. NallCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1917
- City of Louisville v. Heitkemper's AdminstratrixCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916
- Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Ware's Admx.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1903
- Clinger's Admx. v. C. & O. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1908
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.