Legal Opinion · Dissent

State Ex Rel. Kansas City Public Service Co. v. Bland

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided June 4, 1945No. 39206Published

1Dissent

[6] The grounds of my dissent are as follows. Concededly, if the injured party fails to look or listen at a railroad crossing when by doing so the danger would be clearly apparent, his failure constitutes contributory negligence as a matter of law. State ex rel. K.C. So. Ry. Co. v. Shain, 340 Mo. 1195, 1201(3),105 S.W.2d 915, 918(6). Under this decision the same is true when he cannot see or hear the train at all and yet proceeds across the track without exercising care commensurate with the circumstances. See also Borrson v. M.-K.-T. Rd. Co., 351 Mo. 229, 248(6), 172 S.W.2d 835, 847(11).

But…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. ShainSupreme Court of Missouri · 1937
  2. State v. StudebakerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1933
  3. Borrson v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1943
  4. State v. MeltonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1930
  5. State Ex Rel. MacLay v. CoxSupreme Court of Missouri · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API