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

Citations

• 86 Kan. 112
• 119 P. 356
• 1911 Kan. LEXIS 194

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Personal Injuries — Negligence—Condition of Bridge — Evi- , dence. A bridge where a brakeman lost his life was so described and photographed that the jury could thoroughly understand its character and condition. Railway employees were permitted over objection to give their opinions as to such bridge being a safe place to work. Held error, as the jury could not from such opinions have received any assistance in arriving at a proper conclusion.</p> <p>2. - Evidence — Opinions of Railway Employees — Competent. Opinions of railway employees as to which side of a freight train it was proper for a brakeman to alight in order to give signals were properly received — this being a question calling for special knowledge or experience.</p> <p>■3. —i-Printed Rules — Violation—Waived by Railway Company. A printéd rule of the railway company requiring brakemen to be on top of the train when approaching and passing stations was shown to have been habitually violated with knowledge of those whose duty it was to report such violations. Held, that the jury were justified in finding that such rule was waived by the company.</p> <p>4. Negligence — Must be Proven. The mere use on the cab of an engine of a stirrup of the kind used on box cars, instead of the standard step generally used on such engines, does not of itself show negligence as a matter of law. To render its 'use negligent such stirrup must in some way be shown to be unsafe.</p> <p>■5. - Evidence — Circumstances — Inferences. Where circumstances are relied on to show negligence they must be of such significance and relation one to another that a reasonable conclusion of negligence can be founded thereon, and while reasonable inferences may be drawn from the facts and conditions shown they can not be drawn from facts or conditions merely imagined or assumed.</p>