Jones v. City of Kingman

Citations

• 101 Kan. 625
• 168 P. 1099
• 1917 Kan. LEXIS 162

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Negligence — Personal Injuries — Finding Construed. In a personal-injury case in which the negligence of the defendant and contributory negligence of the plaintiff were in issue, the jury were asked whether the injury would have been avoided if either of the parties had exercised due care, and answered: “Yes, the plaintiff.” Held, that this amounts to a special finding in favor of the defendant on both issues.</p> <p>2. Same — Evidence. The evidence held to support findings in favor of the defendant on the issue of negligence.</p> <p>3. Same — Instructions. Instructions asked regarding this issue held to have been properly refused.</p> <p>4. Negligence — Rejected Evidence — Relevancy Must be Shoivn. The requirement, that in order to preserve for review a ruling sustaining an objection to a question the party offering the evidence must at the time inform the trial court what was desired to be shown by the answer, is not dispensed with by the provision of the present code that rejected evidence to be available on appeal must be produced at the hearing of the motion for a new trial.</p> <p>5. Same — Evidence. Evidence admitted over objection held to have been nonprejudicial.</p> <p>6. Same — Instructions. Instructions given and refused regarding contributory negligence held not to have been erroneous.</p> <p>7. Same — Contributory Negligence — Burden of Proof — Instructions. The failure to instruct that upon the issue of contributory negligence the burden of proof was on the defendant held to have been erroneous, but to have been rendered nonprejudicial by the finding against the plaintiff on the issue of the defendant’s negligence.</p> <p>.8. Same — Findings—Inconsistency. The fact that the jury return an affirmative answer to the question whether the plaintiff’s injury was the result of an unavoidable accident, and also find that it could have been avoided by the exercise of due care on the part of the plaintiff, does not necessari