Holt v. Bills

368 P.2d 986, 189 Kan. 261, 1962 Kan. LEXIS 250
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedFebruary 20, 1962
DocketNo. 42,355
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 368 P.2d 986 (Holt v. Bills) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Holt v. Bills, 368 P.2d 986, 189 Kan. 261, 1962 Kan. LEXIS 250 (kan 1962).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Jackson, J.:

In the petition for rehearing counsel has convinced the court that an erroneous statement was made in the opinion of the court, ante, p. 14. This statement had to do with the matter of contributory negligence and the special question to the jury No. 5. The court became overpowered with the language of section 8-547, G. S. 1949. It has been the rule of this court at least since Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Hand, 7 Kan. 380, at page 388, that the burden of proof as to the issue of contributory negligence is on the defendant. See further, Hoff v. Johnston, 186 Kan. 214, 349 P. 2d 873; Stephens v. McGuire, 184 Kan. 46, 334 P. 2d 363; Avery v. City of Lyons, 183 Kan. 611, 331 P. 2d 906. Anything said to the contrary in the opinion in the case at bar is hereby disapproved.

As to the other issues in the case, the petition for rehearing is denied. It is so ordered.

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

Related

Schenck v. Thompson
443 P.2d 298 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
368 P.2d 986, 189 Kan. 261, 1962 Kan. LEXIS 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holt-v-bills-kan-1962.