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

Citations

• 100 Kan. 24
• 163 P. 650
• 1917 Kan. LEXIS 251

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Negligence — Automobile—Railroad Crossing — Cars Standing Still— Negligence a Question of Fact. The rule that it is negligence as a matter of law for the driver of an automobile to attempt to cross a railroad track without stopping, where without doings so he can not assure himself that no train is approaching, does not apply where, as the automobile approaches the crossing, the train is standing still, the rear car being near the highway, and a collision results from a sudden starting of the engine.</p> <p>2. Same. Where á freight car is standing near a crossing it can not be said as a matter of law that the driver of an automobile is guilty of negligence in attempting to cross the track without assuring himself that no train is about to run into the car and force it over the highway.</p> <p>3. SAME — Evidence. The evidence held not to show conclusively that the car by which an automobile was struck while the driver was attempting to cross the track was in motion as he was approaching the crossing.</p> <p>4. Same — Findings. The findings of negligence held to show a sufficient basis of liability.</p> <p>5. Trial — Misconduct of Counsel — Not Prejudicial. The misconduct of counsel in bringing irrelevant matter before the jury held not to be so manifestly prejudicial as to warrant a reversal.</p>