Henons v. Louisville, Cincinnati & Lexington Railroad

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Henons v. Louisville, Cincinnati & Lexington Railroad

7 Ky. Op. 575, 1874 Ky. LEXIS 221

DecidedMarch 11, 1874

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Ky. Op. 575 (Henons v. Louisville, Cincinnati & Lexington Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Henons v. Louisville, Cincinnati & Lexington Railroad, 7 Ky. Op. 575, 1874 Ky. LEXIS 221 (Ky. Ct. App. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

This court, in the case of the L., L. & F. Railroad Company v. Case’s Admr., in an opinion delivered during the present term, adjudged that the plaintiff, in an action like this, when it was alleged that the injury resulted from the willful negligence of the company, was entitled to recover for ordinary neglect. It is alleged that the plaintiff’s intestate was not in the employ of the appellee at the time of the alleged injury, and therefore a recovery could have [576]*576been had under either section of the statute when the facts authorized the finding. It is not proper that we should discuss the effect of the testimony, as the case must go back for further trial, being well satisfied that the facts should have gone to the jury. The judgment of the court below is, therefore, reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to award the appellant a new trial and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Mundy, for appellant. P. F. Green, for appellee.

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

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

This court, in the case of the L., L. & F. Railroad Company v. Case’s Admr., in an opinion delivered during the present term, adjudged that the plaintiff, in an action like this, when it was alleged that the injury resulted from the willful negligence of the company, was entitled to recover for ordinary neglect. It is alleged that the plaintiff’s intestate was not in the employ of the appellee at the time of the alleged injury, and therefore a recovery could have [576]*576been had under either section of the statute when the facts authorized the finding. It is not proper that we should discuss the effect of the testimony, as the case must go back for further trial, being well satisfied that the facts should have gone to the jury. The judgment of the court below is, therefore, reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to award the appellant a new trial and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Mundy, for appellant. P. F. Green, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Ky. Op. 575, 1874 Ky. LEXIS 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henons-v-louisville-cincinnati-lexington-railroad-kyctapp-1874.