Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Foley
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 33 — PETITION ORDINARY — 1. "Where the plaintiff specifies in his petition the negligence complained of, he must be confined on the trial to these specifications. (McCain v. L. & N. R. Co., 13 Ky.
Read the full summary
Case 33 — PETITION ORDINARY — 1. "Where the plaintiff specifies in his petition the negligence complained of, he must be confined on the trial to these specifications. (McCain v. L. & N. R. Co., 13 Ky. Law Rep., 809; Bogenschutz v. Smith, 84 Ky., 330.) As the conductor alone is charged with negligence here, the negligence of no other servant can be considered; but the plaintiff failed to show negligence upon the part of any servant. 2. The plaintiff knew the existing conditions, and if these made the attempt to couple the cars a dangerous one, he was guilty of contributory negligence in…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE LEWIS
DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of M. J. Foley against the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company for five thousand dollars in damages on account of a personal injury.
It is stated substantially in the petition that August 18, 1889, plaintiff was in employment of defendant as brakeman on a freight train which, having, about eleven p. m , started on a run from the freight yard in Louisville, became, when it reached East Louisville, disconnected by reason of the coupling machinery of two cars breaking or becoming- loosened; that he was…
2Cited by23 opinions
- Louisville & N. Railroad v. Molloy's Admx.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1906
- Peirce v. Van DusenCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1897
- Hupfer v. National Distilling Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1903
- Consolidated Coach Corporation v. Earl's Adm'rCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1936
- Pfisterer v. J. H. Peter & Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1904
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.