Johnson v. The Missouri
| Decision Date | 11 February 1922 |
| Docket Number | 22,971 |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
| Parties | JOSEPH S. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. THE MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellee |
Decided January, 1922
Appeal from Miami district court; JABEZ O. RANKIN, judge.
Judgement affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
NEGLIGENCE--Injury at Railroad Crossing--Contributory Negligence of Automobile Driver. The proceedings examined, and held, the driver of an automobile on a public highway, whose view was obstructed was guilty of negligence as a matter of law in driving on a railroad crossing in front of an approaching motorized hand car.
Frank M. Sheridan, and Bernard L. Sheridan, both of Paola, for the appellant.
W. W. Brown, O. T. Atherton, both of Parsons, and R. E. Coughlin, of Paola, for the appellee.
The action was one for damages for injury to person and property resulting from a collision between the plaintiff's automobile and a motorized hand car moving on the defendant's track. A demurrer to the plaintiff's evidence was sustained, and he appeals.
The accident occurred at a highway crossing, with which the plaintiff was familiar. The railroad track extends northward and southward from the crossing, and the plaintiff was traveling eastward. As he approached the crossing, his view toward the north was obstructed by an embankment, and then by a wing fence and vegetation growing on the highway and railroad right of way. He reduced speed to three or four miles per hour and, as his automobile was very nearly on the track, was within something like three or four feet of the west rail, or was possibly on the rail, he saw the car. He was so close he could not stop his automobile without getting on the track. The car was approaching from the north, was 75 or 80 feet away, and was running at a rate of 40 or 50 miles per hour. The plaintiff was looking to see if anything was coming, and he had ability to stop his automobile within three or four feet.
The case is a very simple one. Conceding the defendant was negligent, the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and the demurrer to his evidence was properly sustained. The principles have been stated so often and so recently, it is not necessary to do so again. Automobile drivers who are too willful to suffer the slight inconvenience which reasonable precaution in view of great danger necessitates, must abide the consequences.
The plaintiff insists an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shirley v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
...Co., 89 Kan. 796; Palmer v. Railway Co., 90 Kan. 57; Railway Co. v. Jenkins, 74 Kan. 487; Burzio v. Railway Co., 102 Kan. 287; Johnson v. Railway Co., 110 Kan. 378; Rathbone v. Railway Co., 113 Kan. 257; v. R. R. Co., 74 Kan. 528, 87 P. 680; Williams v. R. R. Co., 102 Kan. 268, 170 P. 397. ......
-
Shirley v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.
...Railway Co. v. Jenkins, 74 Kan. 487, 87 P. 702; Burzio v. Railway Co., 102 Kan. 287, 171 P. 351, L. R. A. 1918C, 997; Johnson v. Railway Co., 110 Kan. 378, 204 P. 727; Rathbone v. Railway Co., 113 Kan. 257, 214 P. 109; Dyerson v. Railroad Co., 74 Kan. 528, 87 P. 680, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 132,......
-
Day v. Union Pac. R. Co.
...274 S.W.2d 264. This rule applies to railroad track cars as well as to engines, freight or passenger cars. Johnson v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 110 Kan. 378, 204 P. 727, 728; Atkinson v. Lusk, 103 Kan. 446, 173 P. 914, The Kansas rule applicable in instances where the railroad has erected ......
-
Ross v. Fleming
... ... in this state. (Sayeg v. Kansas Gas & Electric Co., ... 156 Kan. 65, 67, 131 P.2d 648; Missouri Pac. Railway Co ... v. Walters, 78 Kan. 39 and cases cited page 40, 96 P ... Another ... pertinent rule, well established, is that ... entrapped himself by his own negligence, has been discovered ... or should have been discovered by the defendant. (Johnson ... v. Missouri, K. & T. Railway Co., 110 Kan. 378, 204 P ... 727; Williams v. St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co., 122 Kan ... 256, 252 P. 470; Rule v ... ...