Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Johnson
Decision Date | 08 November 1890 |
Citation | 24 P. 1116,44 Kan. 660 |
Parties | THE MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. SARAH J. JOHNSON |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Error from Wilson District Court.
THE opinion states the facts.
W. A Johnson, for plaintiff in error.
S. S Kirkpatrick, for defendant in error.
OPINION
Sarah J. Johnson brought this suit in the district court of' Wilson county, against the Missouri Pacific Railway Company to recover damages for alleged personal injuries which she claims to have sustained. She alleged in her petition:
To this petition, the railroad company interposed a general denial, and for a second defense set up contributory negligence upon the part of the plaintiff, which directly contributed to the injury. The cause was tried in October, 1887, before a jury, and the plaintiff below recovered a judgment for $ 1,700, which was approved by the trial court.
A number of errors are assigned upon the rulings of the district court.
I. The first is, that the court should have sustained the demurrer of the defendant to the evidence of the plaintiff. The accident occurred on the afternoon of Sunday, April 3, 1887 the plaintiff was returning home with her husband and two children from a neighbor's; they were riding in a wagon drawn by two mules; on the north side of the highway on which they were traveling, there was a tall hedge fence which obstructed the view of a train passing on the track of the defendant's railroad; this hedge extended for about a half-mile east and west of the railroad crossing; the railroad at the crossing was not quite parallel with the hedge, the railroad running from northwest to southeast and more east than south. The plaintiff below testified that before passing behind the hedge, and while she had a view of the railroad, she looked up the track to see if any train was approaching, and she could see none, although she could see the track for a quarter of a mile or more -- possibly a mile; that the mules were brought to a walk, in order that s...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harvey v. Gardner
...refused appellant Gardner's requested withdrawal Instructions 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Gilbert v. Railway Company, supra; Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Johnson, supra; Calvin Schaff, supra; Long v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., supra. (11) The court properly refused defendant Gardner's Instructions 15, 16 and......
-
Harvey v. Gardner
...appellant Gardner was liable for his failure to use ordinary care. St. Jos. & D.C.R. Co. v. Grover, 11 Kan. 302; Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Johnson, 44 Kan. 660, 24 Pac. 1116; Sec. 66-234, G.S. Kan., 1935. (2) The record shows that the collision occurred at a busy, heavily trafficked and hazardous ......
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. Crawford
... ... Ransom v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 62 Wis. 178, 22 ... N.W. 147, 51 Am. Rep. 718; Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v ... Johnson, 44 Kan. 660, 24 P. 1116. But the further ... conclusion is that the ... ...
-
Thompson v. Aultman & Taylor Mach. Co.
... ... City of Emporia, 43 Kan. 704, 706, 23 P. 944; Mo. P ... Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 44 Kan. 660, 664, 24 P. 1116; ... Penfield v. Berhenke, 146 P. 1187 ... The ... ...