Legal Opinion

Rogers v. Kansas Coöperative Refining Co.

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided January 10, 1914No. 18,566PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Appeal from Neosho district court; James W. Finley, judge.

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Porter, J.:

The plaintiff, while working in the capacity of stillman at the defendant’s oil refinery, was burned by hot tar. He recovered judgment for damages from which defendant appeals.

What is called the tar line consists of a three-incn iron pipe one hundred and fifty feet long, which runs from the still to the pump house. In the process of refining the oil a residue of heated tar and oil accumulates in the line which it is necessary to remove before it cools and becomes coked. At the front of the still there was a three-inch iron plug on the end of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Evans v. MoseleySupreme Court of Kansas · 1911
  2. Every v. RainsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1911
  3. Howard v. City of Osage CitySupreme Court of Kansas · 1913
  4. Raney v. North Topeka Drainage DistrictSupreme Court of Kansas · 1911

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Heck v. Quindaro TownshipSupreme Court of Kansas · 1923
  2. Hayes v. NutterSupreme Court of Kansas · 1916
  3. Rogers v. Kansas Cooperative Refining Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1914

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

Powered by the Exa API