Legal Opinion

Cin., N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Harrod's Admr.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Decided January 13, 1909PublishedCited by 32 opinions

Appeal from Scott Circuit Court. R. L. Stout, Circuit Judge. Prom- a judgment for plaintiff defendant appeals, and from an order setting aside a former verdict and granting a new trial, plaintiff took a cross appeal.

1Opinion of the Court

*447Opinion op the Court by

Judge 0 ’Rear.

Harry Harrod was a brakeman in the employ of the Southern Railway Company. The latter company and appellant railway company use the same yard tracks for switching at Georgetown. In the month of February, 1904, early in the morning, about 6 o ’clock, Harrod and others of the crew in charge of a Southern train were shifting cars on these tracks at Georgetown, in which they had occasion to nse the main track of the appellant road. There wias a through passenger train dne on appellant’s road passing from the sonth through Georgetown at 6:19 a. m. It was known…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Taaffe's AdministratorCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1899

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. BeaucondCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1920
  2. Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Johnson's AdministratrixCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1914
  3. Consolidated Coach Corporation v. HopkinsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1929
  4. Stull's Administratrix v. Kentucky Traction & Terminal Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916
  5. Brock v. Mobile & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1932

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API