Marler v. Illinois Cent. R.

229 F. 139, 143 C.C.A. 415, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 1543
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided January 31, 1916·No. No. 2768·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action, although brought in the state of Mississippi, was to recover damages for the negligent killing of plaintiff’s intestate in the state of Louisiana.

The evidence clearly established that the plaintiff’s intestate was guilty of contributory negligence, and none of it was such as to fur[140] nish substantial support for a finding that those in charge of the engine had a “last clear chance,” after his peril due to his negligence, was apparent, to avoid injuring him. In this state of the evidence, the direction of a verdict for the defendant below was proper. See Harrison v. Louisiana Western R. R. Co., 132 La. 761, 61 South. 782; May v. Texas, etc., Ry. Co., 123 La. 647, 49 South. 272; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Modawell, 151 Fed. 421, 80 C. C. A. 651, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 646.

Jones v. Mackay Telegraph Co. (La.) 68 South. 379, appears to have been decided on its peculiar facts, and does not affect the “last clear chance” doctrine, as declared in Harrison v. Louisiana Western Railroad Co., supra.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Marler v. Illinois Cent. R., 229 F. 139, 143 C.C.A. 415, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 1543 (5th Cir. 1916).

229 F. 139 (Marler v. Illinois Cent. R.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Haywood v. Noel
154 So. 484 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1934)