Paducah & Memphis R. R. v. Hoehl
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 7 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL FROM MARSHALL CIRCUIT COURT. CITED 1 Redfield on Railways, p. 547, note 12. 39 N. Y. 68, Ernst v. Hudson River R. R. Co. 39 N. Y. 366, Wilcox v. Rome, Waterton & Og.
Read the full summary
Case 7 — PETITION ORDINARY APPEAL FROM MARSHALL CIRCUIT COURT. CITED 1 Redfield on Railways, p. 547, note 12. 39 N. Y. 68, Ernst v. Hudson River R. R. Co. 39 N. Y. 366, Wilcox v. Rome, Waterton & Og. R. R. Co. 56 Penn. 297, Pittsburg & Connelsville R. R. Co. v. McClurg. 15 Wallace, 405, Railroad Co. v. Gladmon. 55 Penn, 396, Hanover Railroad Co. v. Ooyl. 29 Iowa, 57, Spencer v. Illinois Central R. R. Co. CITED 10 Bush, 231, Johnson’s adm’r v. Louisville City Railway Co. 33 N. Y. 369, Chapman v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co. Child noprequired to be as careful as Adults: 38 N. Y. 460, Mangara v. Railroad…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE PRYOR
delivered the opinion oe the court.
Mary Hoehl, an infant twelve years of age, instituted this action, by her next friend, against the Paducah & Memphis Railroad Company to recover damages for the negligence of its employees in running its train, by which the cars of the company ran over the plaintiff, crushing one of her legs, rendering amputation necessary, and inflicting upon her other great bodily injuries. A verdict and judgment were rendered against the company for $11,000, from which this appeal is prosecuted., It appears, from the evidence, that the appellee lived with her…
2Cited by25 opinions
- Sheff v. City of HuntingtonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1880
- Felton v. AubreyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
- Cahill v. CincinnatiCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1891
- Louisville, Cincinnati & Lexington Railroad v. Goetz's adm'xCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1881
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. McCoyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1883
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.