McDougall v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Supreme Court of Kansas
Appeal from Wyandotte district court, division No. 1; Edward L. Fischer, judge.
1ConcurrencePorter, J.
I agree that the plaintiff cannot recover because McDougall assumed the risk, but I am also of the opinion that no negligence was shown against the defendant. The weight of reason, as well as of authority, supports the rule that the manner in which a railroad company constructs and maintains its permanent structures, is a matter of engineering, and not a question to submit to the jury. The question of negligence was before the supreme court of the United States in Tuttle v. Milwaukee Railway, 122 U. S. 189. The negligence charged was in the construction of the tracks with a sharp curve which…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Tuttle v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee RailwaySupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Cloud v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1910
- Krebbs v. Oregon Railroad & Navigation Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1905
- Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad v. McOskerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1909
- Ball v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1918