Horning v. Haney

357 P.2d 797, 187 Kan. 433, 1960 Kan. LEXIS 446
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedDecember 10, 1960
DocketNo. 41,966
StatusPublished

This text of 357 P.2d 797 (Horning v. Haney) 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
Horning v. Haney, 357 P.2d 797, 187 Kan. 433, 1960 Kan. LEXIS 446 (kan 1960).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Fatzer, J.:

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Caroyn Krentz Horning, to recover for personal injuries sustained while crossing a street on foot when she was struck and injured by an automobile driven by Margaret J. Haney and owned by defendant Wayne Haney, her husband. The appeal is from an order sustaining the defendants’ demurrer to the plaintiff’s evidence upon the ground that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law which barred her recovery. No other question is presented.

The instant appeal is almost identical to the case of Krentz v. Haney, No. 41,965, 187 Kan. 428, 357 P. 2d 793 this day de- ■ cided. The only difference between the two is that in Krentz u. Haney, supra, the parents of the plaintiff in this action commenced that suit to recover the hospital and medical bills incurred following [434]*434Caroyn’s injury, and in the instant appeal Caroyn brings suit for personal injuries she sustained. The two actions were consolidated for trial in the district court and almost identical briefs and abstracts have been filed in both cases. The evidence of the plaintiff was the same in both cases and it is unnecessary to here detail that evidence since it is fully summarized in Krentz v. Haney, supra.

Based upon what was said and held in that decision, that is, that the evidence of the plaintiff did not show her guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law barring her recovery, the order and judgment of the district court sustaining the defendants’ demurrer to the plaintiff’s evidence must be reversed.

It is so ordered.

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

Related

Krentz v. Haney
357 P.2d 793 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
357 P.2d 797, 187 Kan. 433, 1960 Kan. LEXIS 446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horning-v-haney-kan-1960.