TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Libbey v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

Mary F. Libbey v. The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company

Libbey v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 77 P. 541 (Kan. 1904)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Kansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 7, 1904
Docket
No. 13,719
Citations
77 P. 54169 Kan. 8691904 Kan. LEXIS 375
Disposition
Affirmed.
Summary
Error from Wyandotte court of common pleas; William G-. Holt, judge.

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.

1904: 11905: 11906: 11908: 11920: 11937: 119042026peak 1904 · 1

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list