Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. McCoy
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 64-ORDINARY APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. 1. The court erred in its definition of ordinary care. It is evident that the care which an ordinarily prudent and careful man exercises in taking care of his family is not a proper test by which to determine whether or not he has been guilty of a social duty to a stranger. 2. The court confused gross neglect, as applied by the rules of the common law, to injuries not resulting in death, with that neglect…
Read the full summary
Case 64-ORDINARY APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. 1. The court erred in its definition of ordinary care. It is evident that the care which an ordinarily prudent and careful man exercises in taking care of his family is not a proper test by which to determine whether or not he has been guilty of a social duty to a stranger. 2. The court confused gross neglect, as applied by the rules of the common law, to injuries not resulting in death, with that neglect denominated “willful” hy our statute, providing for punitive damage in case of death produced hy the culpable negligence of the…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Hargis
In the beginning collision of counsel renders it necessary •to determine what questions are, by the grounds for new trial and assignment of errors, presented to the court for its decision.
According to section 340, Civil Code, there are eight general causes for granting a new trial. Some of these pauses are stated in that section with sufficient particularity to be followed specifically in the written grounds which may be filed by a party, but others are so generic that the language of the Code, if literally pursued, would not enable the court to know, with reasonable certainty, what…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Tonawanda Rail-Road v. MungerNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Tudor v. LewisCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1860
- Louisville & Portland Canal Co. v. MurphyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1872
- Maysville & Lexington R. R. v. HerrickCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1877
- Paducah & Memphis R. R. v. HoehlCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1876
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Altman v. AronsonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1919
- Williams v. WilsonKentucky Supreme Court · 1998
- Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. LoweCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1904
- Lou. & Nash. R. R. v. MitchellCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1888
- Downey v. C. & O. Railway Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1886
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.