St. Louis
Decision Date | 10 December 1887 |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Parties | THE ST. LOUIS, FORT SCOTT & WICHITA RAILROAD COMPANY v. W. H. IRWIN |
Error from Sedgwick District Court.
ACTION against The St. Louis, Fort Scott & Wichita Railroad Company by W. H. Irwin, to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by him while serving the company in the capacity of a freight conductor. The plaintiff alleged that the company negligently constructed and provided a defective and unsuitable bridge upon its road, and that on December 6 1884, while Irwin was on a freight train in the discharge of his duties, the train passed over and across the low and defective bridge, and although acting with due care and caution, he forcibly and violently came in contact with the overhead timbers composing the bridge, and was thereby violently thrown down from said train, and was injured in his head, spine, body, and limbs, disabling him from performing any manual labor, causing him to linger in great bodily pain and mental anguish, and making him an invalid for life. The company answered, denying that it was negligent, and alleging that the injury was the result of his own carelessness and negligence. At the October Term, 1886, of the district court of Sedgwick county, the cause was tried with a jury, which in a general verdict, awarded the plaintiff $ 12,000. The following findings of fact were also returned in response to particular questions proposed by the respective parties:
QUESTIONS BY DEFENDANT.
QUESTIONS BY PLAINTIFF.
1. Were the braces on the bridge in question in such close proximity to the top of cars of ordinary height as to unnecessarily increase the risk and danger to which the employes engaged in running cars through said bridge would be exposed? Ans.: Yes.
The railroad company moved to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial, on the grounds of irregularities on the part of the court and the jury during the trial; misconduct of the plaintiff and his counsel during the trial; and excessive damages; and that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and is contrary to law. The court overruled the motion, and gave judgment in favor of Irwin for the sum of $ 12,000. Exceptions were taken to the rulings of the court on the motion, and in the rendition of judgment. The Railroad Company brings the case to this court for review.
Judgment affirmed.
J. H. Richards, and Harris, Harris & Vermilion, for plaintiff in error.
Houston & Bentley, for defendant in error.
OPINION
It is earnestly contended by the plaintiff in error that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the finding that the railroad company was negligent in the construction and maintenance of the bridge which occasioned the injury; and that even if the company was negligent, the testimony shows that at the time of the accident Irwin was not exercising that prudence and care which was required of him, and hence ought not to recover. The testimony shows that the bridge in question is built over the Walnut river, about one-half mile from the station at El Dorado. It was so constructed that the top beams were sufficiently high to permit a person standing on the center of the top of a box car or caboose to pass through without colliding with these timbers, but there were braces, extending from the posts of the bridge to the top beams, which were...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Potter v. Detroit, G.H. & M. Ry. Co.
...existence and location of the target, he may not have known from observation that it was near enough to be dangerous.' In Railroad Co. v. Irwin, 37 Kan. 701, 16 P. 146, freight train conductor, while riding on top of his caboose, struck a brace that extended from the side post to the top be......
-
Howard v. Beldenville Lumber Co.
...465, 28 S. W. 23;Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Locke, 112 Ind. 404, 14 N. E. 391, 2 Am. St. Rep. 193;St. L., Ft. S. & W. R. Co. v. Irwin, 37 Kan. 701, 16 Pac. 146, 1 Am. St. Rep. 266;Mickee v. Wood Mowing & Reaping Machine Co., 77 Hun, 559, 28 N. Y. Supp. 918;Haskins v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. ......
- Saunders v. Southern Pac. Co.
-
McCabe v. Montana Cent. Ry. Co.
... ... to 1291, and authorities cited." And see Berg v. B. & M ... Con. C. & S. M. Co., 12 Mont. 212, 29 P. 545; Ill. Cent. R ... R. Co. v. Welch, 52 Ill. 183, 4 Am. Rep. 593; Geo. Pacific ... Railway Co. v. Davis, 92 Ala. 300, 9 So. 252, 25 Am. St. Rep ... 47; St. Louis, Ft. Scott & Wichita R. R. Co., v. Irwin, 37 ... Kan. 701, 16 P. 146, 1 Am. St. Rep. 266; Bryce v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 103 Iowa, 665, 72 N.W. 780. Mr. Justice De ... Witt, in Prosser v. Montana Central Railway Co., 17 Mont ... 372, 43 P. 81, 30 L. R. A. 814, states the tenor of the ... ...