McGhee v. Guyn
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 37 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL PROM WOODFORD CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The evidence heard by the jury demonstrated the fact that the killing was unavoidable and not the result of any negligence.
Read the full summary
Case 37 — PETITION ORDINARY — APPEAL PROM WOODFORD CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The evidence heard by the jury demonstrated the fact that the killing was unavoidable and not the result of any negligence. After the defendant’s servants in charge of the train have purged their ■ consciences by testifying that the proper care was taken and they are unimpeached the -force of the statute is exhausted, and it becomes indispensable to the plaintiff’s right to recover to show the existence of negligence in fact. (Ky. Cent. R. Co. v. Talbot, 78 Ky., 621; St. L. & N. O. R. Co. v. Larrikins, 5 Ky. L. R., 777;…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HAZELRIGG
delivered the opinion op the court.
When sued for negligently killing stock a railroad company may overcome tlie statutory presumption of negligence by introducing satisfactory and consistent proof that the killing could not have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary care. And when this is done by the uncontradicted and unimpeaclied testimony of the employes in charge of the train it is not within the province of the jury to find otherwise. (Kentucky Central R. Co. v. Talbot, &c., 78 Ky., 621.)
From the testimony in the case now before us the finding of the jury should have…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kentucky Central R. R. v. TalbotCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1880
3Cited by8 opinions
- Mullen & Haynes Co. v. CrispCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1925
- Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Tuggle's AdministratorCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1934
- Parrish v. Louisville & N. R. R.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1907
- Reliance Coal & Coke Co. v. Louisville & Nashville RailroadCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1924
- Crawford v. Southern RailwayCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.