Barker v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.

Citations

• 89 Kan. 573
• 132 P. 156

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Negligence — Fire from Railroad Train — Evidence of Previous Fires Competent. In a fire ease it is competent to show that three days previously another fire was discovered at or near the same place, when a similar train has passed.</p> <p>2. Evidence — When Reception of Incompetent Evidence is Prejudicial Error. Jurors are not sensitive plants from which every slight breeze or breath of incompetent evidence must be excluded in order to maintain their qualifications to decide a case, and when the issues have been fully presented and competent evidence has been heard touching the conflicting claims it is not the policy of the law to send the case back for another trial unless the incompetency of evidence received is such as fairly to show material prejudice.</p> <p>3. Instructions — As to What Would Constitute a Complete Defense. The jury having been properly instructed as to the degree of care required it was not error to charge that if the plaintiff had proven certain facts she would be entitled to a ' verdict unless it was shown by the preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was not guilty of negligence in the operation of its engine or in failing to equip it with proper appliances to prevent the escape of fire, such charge not amounting to a requirement to equip the engine so as absolutely to prevent the escape of fire.</p> <p>4. - Special Findings^-When Error to Refuse to Submit. The jury having found that the fire originated from the engine the defendant had a right to have questions submitted as to whether the engine was lacking in proper equipment or whether the fire originated from improper operation of the engine by those in charge.</p> <p>5. Jury — Verdict Must Result from Concensus of Opinion. There must be a concensus of opinion, not only as to the liability of the defendant but as to the essential facts of the case as well, in order to justify a recovery.</p>