Smith v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
This text of 122 P. 896 (Smith v. Metropolitan Street 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.
Opinion
The plaintiff claimed she attempted to board a standing car. The defendant claimed the injury did not happen that way,'but that she attempted to hoard a moving car. The allegation of the answer was that the plaintiff “thereby caused'-’ any injury she may have received. Of course proximate cause was meant. The requested instruction was that she received her injury, if any, “by reason of” such attempt — proximate cause again. In the instructions given the court defined proximate ■cause so the jury could not fail to understand what was meant. The burden of proof was imposed upon the plaintiff to make out a case on her theory before she could recover, and that was sufficient. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
122 P. 896, 86 Kan. 982, 1912 Kan. LEXIS 429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-metropolitan-street-railway-co-kan-1912.