St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. McCabe

Supreme Court of Kansas

St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. McCabe

81 P. 1133, 71 Kan. 871, 1905 Kan. LEXIS 280

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedJune 10, 1905

DocketNo. 14,173

StatusPublished

This text of 81 P. 1133 (St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. McCabe) 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

St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. McCabe, 81 P. 1133, 71 Kan. 871, 1905 Kan. LEXIS 280 (kan 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

In this action the sufficiency of the evidence offered by Pat McCabe to sustain a charge of culpable negligence against the railroad company was challenged. A reading of the evidence satisfies the court that it fairly tended to support the claim that there was negligence in not jacking up the tender under which McCabe was required to work, and in not furnishing sufficient light so that he might work with safety. He was hurried into the dimly lighted place, the tender was not placed in proper position, and as he did not see the danger from the brake-hanger his hand was caught and crushed. Under the testimony it cannot be said that McCabe should have seen and [872]*872appreciated the danger, nor that the risk was one assumed by him. The instructions fairly defined the issues to the jury, and their findings appear not 'to be inconsistent with the general verdict nor with each other. The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam:

In this action the sufficiency of the evidence offered by Pat McCabe to sustain a charge of culpable negligence against the railroad company was challenged. A reading of the evidence satisfies the court that it fairly tended to support the claim that there was negligence in not jacking up the tender under which McCabe was required to work, and in not furnishing sufficient light so that he might work with safety. He was hurried into the dimly lighted place, the tender was not placed in proper position, and as he did not see the danger from the brake-hanger his hand was caught and crushed. Under the testimony it cannot be said that McCabe should have seen and [872]*872appreciated the danger, nor that the risk was one assumed by him. The instructions fairly defined the issues to the jury, and their findings appear not 'to be inconsistent with the general verdict nor with each other. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 P. 1133, 71 Kan. 871, 1905 Kan. LEXIS 280, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-louis-san-francisco-railroad-v-mccabe-kan-1905.