Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Mertes
Nebraska Supreme Court
The plaintiff below was guilty of contributory negligence. There was no evidence to show any failure on the part of the company to do its whole duty. There was therefore no question of negligence on the part of the company to submit to the jury, and the motion to direct a verdict for defendant below should have been sustained.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff below was guilty of contributory negligence. There was no evidence to show any failure on the part of the company to do its whole duty. There was therefore no question of negligence on the part of the company to submit to the jury, and the motion to direct a verdict for defendant below should have been sustained. (Apsey v. Detroit, L. & N. B. Co., 47 N. W. Rep. [Mich.], 513; Hamilton v. Delaware, L. & W. B. Co., 50 N. J. Law, 263; International & G. N. JR. Co. v. Graves, 59 Tex., 331; Beach, Contributory Negligence, pp. 19,20; Chicago, JR. I. & P. JR. Co. v. Houston, 95 U. S.,…
1Opinion of the Court
Ryan, C.
The opinion originally filed in this case was reported in 35 Nebraska on pages 204 et seq. A rehearing was granted, and upon full argument we have reached the conclusions which will now be briefly stated. To this end, it is not necessary to review or criticise the syllabus or opinion already referred to. For the purposes of this re-examination they will be assumed to be correct statements of the law applicable to the facts, and the synopsis of the pleadings, proofs, and. established facts will be assumed to be correctly stated, except in so far as otherwise hereinafter pointed out.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Union Pacific Railroad v. ConnollyNebraska Supreme Court · 1906
- Omaha & Republican Valley Railway Co. v. CookNebraska Supreme Court · 1895
- Hansberry v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1907