Haines v. Union Pacific Railroad

Citations

• 110 Kan. 269
• 203 P. 707
• 1922 Kan. LEXIS 29

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Master and Servant — Distracted Employee — Fall from Hand Car — Demurrer — Findings—Judgment. The plaintiff’s ward, a person of subnormal mentality and of physical infirmity, was knocked off an overcrowded railway hand car,' while employed by the United States director-general of railroads. The defense was contributory negligence and assumption of risk. Record examined, and held (1) that the demurrer to the evidence was properly overruled; (2) that the defendant was not entitled to judgment on the special findings of the jury; and (3) that there was no error in the instructions given or refused.</p> <p>2. Same — Distracted Employee — Fall from Hand Car — Assumption of Bisk. When a railway employee in the service of a master who is engaged in interstate commerce is of subnormal intelligence and is physically infirm he cannot as a matter of law be held to the same standard of duty to look out for himself, nor does he assume all the ordinary risks of his employment, to the extent imposed on able-bodied employees of normal intelligence. Such an employee only assumes the risks of employment which his subnormal intelligence will enable him to realize and understand.</p> <p>I</p>