Libbey v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
Mary F. Libbey v. The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
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 Libbey 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,
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.