Jones v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 January 1918 |
| Docket Number | 22472 |
| Citation | 78 So. 568,143 La. 307 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | JONES v. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO |
On Rehearing April 29, 1918
S. W Moore, of Kansas City, Mo., and Alexander & Wilkinson, of Shreveport, for appellant.
Otis W Bullock and Blanchard & Smith, all of Shreveport, for appellee.
Plaintiff in this suit prays for the recovery of damages in the sum of $ 30,000 for the benefit of herself as widow, and for the benefit of her minor children, alleged to have been suffered on account of the death of Thomas A. Jones, her late husband and father of her said children.
She charges that her said husband, who was a locomotive engineer in the employ of defendant company, was killed while so employed in a collision and wreck on defendant's railroad near the city of Shreveport, said collision and wreck being caused by the gross negligence and carelessness of the said defendant and its employes. The defendant being an interstate commerce carrier, plaintiff based her cause of action on the act of Congress which regulates the liability of employers for personal injuries to their employes. Defendant, after unsuccessfully attempting to remove the case to the United States District Court, answered plaintiff's demand, and was after due trial condemned to pay plaintiff the sum of $ 17,500. That judgment was appealed to this court, and was affirmed. See 137 La. 178, 68 So. 401.
The case was then brought by writ of error to the United States Supreme Court, and that tribunal reversed our decree on the ground that we had committed error in ruling that evidence of contributory negligence rejected by the trial court for a wrong reason was nevertheless properly excluded, because it was not offered for the specific purpose of mitigating damages, there being no local rule requiring counsel, without inquiry from the court, to announce in advance the purpose for which evidence is tendered. The cause was then remanded to the trial court, in order to afford defendant an opportunity to show, if it could, that deceased had contributed to his death by his own negligence.
Pursuant to the decree of the United States Supreme Court, the case was again tried in the district court for the parish of Caddo, and a verdict was then rendered in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $ 26,500, and the present appeal is from a judgment based upon that verdict.
Opinion.Defendant alleges error on the part of the trial judge in his instructions to the jury. It complains of the failure of the jury to apply the law as charged by the judge and it also complains of the conclusions of fact reached by this court in its former opinion.
On the last trial, which was ordered mainly for the purpose of permitting it to show contributory negligence on the part of Jones, the deceased, defendant signally failed to establish such contributory negligence. It may be the failure on its part to offer any testimony to that effect...
To continue reading
Request your trial