Legal Opinion · Dissent

Keegan v. Chicago Great Western Railroad

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 20, 1932No. 28,812Published

1DissentDibell, J.

I do not quite agree with what are taken to be the established facts at the moment of the accident. The decedent intended the cars to go north — not back onto number three. Work was to be done at the north. The evidence is that it was for the foreman to direct the movements of the cars as they went from lead to switch. It cannot be said as a matter of law, so it seems to me, that the helper was free of negligence in turning the switch so that the drag went onto number three; nor can it be said as a matter of law that the decedent stood on number three, with switch lights in sight, as to which…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  2. Witort v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API