St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. Bricker

Supreme Court of Kansas

St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. Bricker

59 P. 268, 61 Kan. 224, 1899 Kan. LEXIS 29

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedDecember 9, 1899

DocketNo. 11,345

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 59 P. 268 (St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. Bricker) 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 Railway Co. v. Bricker, 59 P. 268, 61 Kan. 224, 1899 Kan. LEXIS 29 (kan 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Smith, J. :

The findings of the jury being inconsistent with one another, the verdict cannot stand. It is found that the direct cause of the injury was the failure of the foreman in charge of the bridge repairers to give timely warning to the defendant in error, and neglect of the foreman to inform the men who were unloading the timbers that there was any one under the bridge at work. It is also found that defendant in error knew that his coemployees were at work above him, and that they were about to throw off a stick of timber. This, coupled with the finding that Bricker could have avoided .the injury complaihed of had he remained where he was at work and watched which side of the bridge the stick of timber was about to fall, tends to the conclusion that the defendant in error was guilty of contributory negligence, and that his own want of care, and not that of the foreman, caused 'the injury. While want of ordinary care on the part of the foreman is expressly found in at least six of the answers to particular questions, yet a strong showing of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff below appears in three other answers.

[230]*230The inconsistency between these different findings is so palpable and clear as to render them irreconcilable. In one answer the jury say that plaintiff below had no timely warning of danger, and in another that his situation and information were such that he needed none — in effect, saying that a warning would not contribute to the knowledge he already possessed of his dangerous position. The general verdict, based on such findings, must be set aside. ( Shoemaker v. St. L. & S. F. Rly. Co., 30 Kan. 359, 2 Pac. 517; A. T. & S. F. Rld. Co. v. Weber, Adm’r, 33 id. 543, 6 Pac. 877; A. T. & S. F. Rld. Co. v. Maher, 23 id. 163.)

The judgment of the court below will be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Smith, J. :

The findings of the jury being inconsistent with one another, the verdict cannot stand. It is found that the direct cause of the injury was the failure of the foreman in charge of the bridge repairers to give timely warning to the defendant in error, and neglect of the foreman to inform the men who were unloading the timbers that there was any one under the bridge at work. It is also found that defendant in error knew that his coemployees were at work above him, and that they were about to throw off a stick of timber. This, coupled with the finding that Bricker could have avoided .the injury complaihed of had he remained where he was at work and watched which side of the bridge the stick of timber was about to fall, tends to the conclusion that the defendant in error was guilty of contributory negligence, and that his own want of care, and not that of the foreman, caused 'the injury. While want of ordinary care on the part of the foreman is expressly found in at least six of the answers to particular questions, yet a strong showing of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff below appears in three other answers.

[230]*230The inconsistency between these different findings is so palpable and clear as to render them irreconcilable. In one answer the jury say that plaintiff below had no timely warning of danger, and in another that his situation and information were such that he needed none — in effect, saying that a warning would not contribute to the knowledge he already possessed of his dangerous position. The general verdict, based on such findings, must be set aside. ( Shoemaker v. St. L. & S. F. Rly. Co., 30 Kan. 359, 2 Pac. 517; A. T. & S. F. Rld. Co. v. Weber, Adm’r, 33 id. 543, 6 Pac. 877; A. T. & S. F. Rld. Co. v. Maher, 23 id. 163.)

The judgment of the court below will be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 P. 268, 61 Kan. 224, 1899 Kan. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-louis-san-francisco-railway-co-v-bricker-kan-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack