Libbey v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

77 P. 541, 69 Kan. 869, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 375
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJuly 7, 1904
DocketNo. 13,719
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 77 P. 541 (Libbey v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.) 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
Libbey v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co., 77 P. 541, 69 Kan. 869, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 375 (kan 1904).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

John R. Libbey, a railroad conductor, was struck by a moving train in the yards of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Pe Railway Company, at Emporia, and from the injuries sustained he died. His widow brought this action to recover damages for the negligent act, and to the testimony introduced by her the court sustained a demurrer, holding that her own testimony showed that Lib-bey’s negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.

A reading of the the record satisfies.us that the ruling must be upheld. Assuming that the company was negligent in running its trains through the yards at too rapid a rate of speed, and that no one was on the end of the train as it was backed toward Libbey, the testimony of the plaintiff showed that he, who was talking to a coemployee in the yards, recklessly turned and stepped upon a track and in front of a moving train, without looking in the direction from which the train was coming. He was familiar with the yards and with the fact that two switch-engines were continually moving cars backward and forward through the yards. Although it was night-time, plaintiff’s testimony showed that the cars could have been seen by [870]*870Libbey for a short distance. He knew the dangers of the place; he voluntarily and unnecessarily put himself into a place of danger; and he took no precaution for his own protection. In stepping upon a railroad-track in front of a moving train without looking or listening, he ignored the plainest dictates of ordinary prudence, and plaintiff’s testimony showed that his negligence directly contributed to. the injury.

The objections to rulings on testimony are not material.

The judgment is affirmed,

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

Related

Weeks v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
109 S.W.2d 374 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1937)
Gaffney v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
192 P. 736 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1920)
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Quinlan
93 P. 632 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1908)
Limb v. Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis Railroad
84 P. 136 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1906)
Hoopes v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
83 P. 987 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1905)
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Withers
77 P. 542 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 P. 541, 69 Kan. 869, 1904 Kan. LEXIS 375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/libbey-v-atchison-topeka-santa-fe-railway-co-kan-1904.