Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. RY. Co. v. McIntyre

Sixth Circuit

Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. RY. Co. v. McIntyre

215 F. 91, 131 C.C.A. 399, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1229

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 30, 1914

DocketNo. 2401

StatusPublished

This text of 215 F. 91 (Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. RY. Co. v. McIntyre) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. RY. Co. v. McIntyre, 215 F. 91, 131 C.C.A. 399, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1229 (6th Cir. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The jury found that the operators of the train which killed Mrs. McIntyre had not kept a lookout ahead or had not, after she appeared on the track, used every possible means to stop the train, as required by Shannon’s Tennessee Code, §§ 1574, 1575, 1576. There seems no doubt that she was seen by the brakeman lookout at the full distance ahead for which physical obstacles permitted a view [92]*92of the track. Though this distance was short, and though, giving the utmost permissible force to the plaintiff’s testimony and theory, the delay was very brief, after she was seen and the statutory precautions could have been taken.and before they actually were taken, yet we think there was room 'for the jury to conclude that the railroad company did not fully meet the duty imposed by this statute and by the familiar very rigorous construction of the law put upon it by the Supreme Court of Tennessee..

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The jury found that the operators of the train which killed Mrs. McIntyre had not kept a lookout ahead or had not, after she appeared on the track, used every possible means to stop the train, as required by Shannon’s Tennessee Code, §§ 1574, 1575, 1576. There seems no doubt that she was seen by the brakeman lookout at the full distance ahead for which physical obstacles permitted a view [92]*92of the track. Though this distance was short, and though, giving the utmost permissible force to the plaintiff’s testimony and theory, the delay was very brief, after she was seen and the statutory precautions could have been taken.and before they actually were taken, yet we think there was room 'for the jury to conclude that the railroad company did not fully meet the duty imposed by this statute and by the familiar very rigorous construction of the law put upon it by the Supreme Court of Tennessee..

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 F. 91, 131 C.C.A. 399, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cincinnati-n-o-t-p-ry-co-v-mcintyre-ca6-1914.