Legal Opinion · Concurrence
St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Bell
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided June 13, 1916No. 3608Published
Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; Geo. W. Clark, Judge. . Action by Harriett Alma Bell against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
1ConcurrenceThacker, J.
I concur in the conclusion reached in this case; but I am not satisfied with the manner in .which the question of imputed negligence is treated, and cannot agree that it “was one of law for the court, and not a question of contributory negligence to be left to the jury as a question of fact.” The essential facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
In Black’s Law Dictionary (2d Ed.) 810, it is said:
“Contributory negligence, when set up as a defense to an action for injuries alleged to have been caused by the defendant’s negligence, means any want of ordinary care on the part of the'person…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Arkansas Valley Land & Cattle Co. v. MannSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- McLaughlin v. Louisville Electric Light Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1896
- St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. HartSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. LongSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Clark v. Great Northern Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1905
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.