Kansas & A. V. Ry. Co. v. Waters

70 F. 28, 16 C.C.A. 609, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2468
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided September 16, 1895·No. No. 559·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

CALDWELL, Circuit Judge.

For a full statement of the aceident vMdi gave rise to this suit, see opinion in case of Railway Co. v. Dye (No. 558, at the present term) 70 Fed. 24. The defendant in error, Charles Waters, was one of the section crew of which Quilliam was foreman, and was on the hand ear, and was injured in the collision between the hand car and the freight train which resulted in the death of Quilliam. We have just decided, in the case of Railway Co. v. Dye, that no recovery could be had for the death of Quilliam, on Ihe ground that the accident was brought about, in whole or in part, by Ms negligence. According to the latest judgments of the supreme court of the United States, Quilliam and Wafers were fellow servants; and the latter, therefore, cannot recover for injuries which resulted from the negligence of the section foreman. Railroad Co. v. Baugh, 149 U. S. 368, 13 Sup. Ct. 914; Railroad Co. v. Hambly, 154 U. S. 349, 14 Sup. Ct. 983. The judgment of the United States court in the Indian Territory is reversed, with instructions to grant a new trial.

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

Kansas & A. V. Ry. Co. v. Waters, 70 F. 28, 16 C.C.A. 609, 1895 U.S. App. LEXIS 2468 (8th Cir. 1895).

70 F. 28 (Kansas & A. V. Ry. Co. v. Waters) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Farrar v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
130 S.W. 373 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1910)
Chandler v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad
106 S.W. 553 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1907)
Westinghouse, Church, Kerr & Co. v. Callaghan
155 F. 397 (Eighth Circuit, 1907)
American Bridge Co. v. Seeds
144 F. 605 (Eighth Circuit, 1906)
Weeks v. Scharer
111 F. 330 (Eighth Circuit, 1901)
Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Elliott
102 F. 96 (Eighth Circuit, 1900)
Balch v. Haas
73 F. 974 (Eighth Circuit, 1896)