McClanahan v. Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry. Co.
Citations
- 111 La. 781
- 35 So. 902
- 1902 La. LEXIS 180
Syllabus
<p>RAILROADS—PEDESTRIANS—USE OF TRACK-CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE—DUTY TO DISCOVER—EVIDENCE.</p> <p>1. Deceased, upon a clear day, whilst intoxicated, fell upon defendant’s railroad track and became unconscious, whether by reason of striking his head against a rail or cross-tie, or from the fumes' of liquor, does not appear. From the point at which he fell, near the confines of a small village and of the defendant’s railroad yard, the track, for several miles to the eastward, was straight, built upon an embankment, through open fields, with a grade slightly descending to the westward, and was entirely free from obstruction. The middle of the track was commonly used as a footpath and was clear of grass. The grass between the path and the rails was dead and yellow?, and was not higher than the rails. The body of the deceased, weighing about 150 pounds, wrapped in a gray overcoat, lying, extended from the path across to, and with one leg over, the north rail, was not an inconspicuous object, and in that position was run over by a train from the eastward, consisting of an engine (from which steam had been cut off), a caboose, and 17 freight cars, and was moving, in view of its approach to the village and to the defendant’s railroad yard, merely by acquired momentum, at the rate of 15 or 18 miles an hour. The engine and 5 or 6, only, of the cars were provided with air brakes. The train crew proper consisted of the conductor, who was in the caboose, the engineer, the fireman, and three brakemen; but one of the brakemen was absent, another was in the cab of the engine, and the third was unaccounted for at the moment of the accident, and no hand brakes were applied.</p> <p>Held, that the defendant is liable in damages— the organ of the court being of opinion that, under article 272 of the Constitution, declaring all railways public highways, the deceased was not a trespasser, and that the defendant could, and should, more promptly have discovered his presence and peril, and tha
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “[A]n ALJ may assign greater weight to the opinion of a non-examining source when it is better 18 supported by the record.”
- ALJ properly considered opinion from a nurse practitioner, a non-acceptable medical source, explaining that, among other reasons, the opinion was not entitled to any special weight
- “contrary to [p]laintiff’s assertions, it is well-settled that the opinion of a non-examining source may be credited over that of an examining physician, particularly where the examining source’s opinion is contradicted by the record”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Ail, Breaux, Decree, Free, Land, Monroe, Nicholls, Nioholls, Opinions, Provosty, Public, See, South, Taken, Takes, Tending, Tracks, Use, Used
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.