Angell v. Chicago Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.

Citations

• 97 Kan. 688
• 156 P. 763
• 1916 Kan. LEXIS 379

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Railroad Crossing — Injuries — Actionable Negligence Shown. The evidence held to warrant a finding of actionable negligence on the part of a railway company with respect to a crossing accident.</p> <p>2. Same — Injuries—19-year-old Girl — Carriage Driven by Another— Negligence. It can not be said as a matter of law that a girl of nineteen, riding in the rear seat of a carriage driven by her brother-in-law, is bound to advise him with respect to the management of the team on approaching .at night a railroad crossing where obstructions prevent a view of the track from a greater distance than about fifteen feet, although she is familiar with the surroundings and he is not.</p> <p>3. Practice — Amendment to Pleading During Trial — Judicial Discretion. It is not an abuse of discretion to refuse a request, made after the impaneling of a jury, to allow an answer, whieh alleges only personal contributory negligence on the part of the person for whose death a recovery is sought, to be amended so as to charge also imputed negligence.</p> <p>4. Railroad Crossing — Habit of Person Killed May be Shown. Upon the issue whether a person killed in a crossing accident had looked and listened for a train upon approaching a railroad crossing, his habit in that regard may be shown.</p> <p>5. Trial — No Prejudicial Error in Instructions. Rulings relating to instructions held to be either correct or nonprejudicial.</p> <p>6. Practice — Separate Defendants — Represented by Separate Attorneys — Error to Deny the Right. The fact that several defendants, whose interests are not entirely similar, have in the earlier stages of a case' been represented by the same counsel, does not prevent their insisting upon being, heard through separate attorneys at the trial. And the refusal of the court to allow one of them to have the adverse witnesses cross-examined in his behalf by his own lawyer is such a denial of his right to a full hearing as to require a new trial