Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Dorr

Citations

• 73 Kan. 486
• 85 P. 533
• 1906 Kan. LEXIS 279

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Railroads — Injury to Employee — Defective Appliance — Notice. Before an employee of a railroad company can recover from the company for injuries resulting from a defective appliance on a locomotive, of which defect the railroad company had no actual knowledge, he must show that it had existed for such a length of time that the company should have discovered and remedied it.</p> <p>2. Jury and Jurors — Special Finding Too Indefinite. There was a finding by .the jury that the injury in question would not have occurred but for the defect, and that the company had no actual knowledge of its existence. They also found, in response to a question as to the duration of the defect, that it had existed “for some time previous to the accident.” Held, that the latter finding is too indefinite to support a recovery.</p> <p>3. -Second Finding Also Indefinite — Presumption on Review — Waiver. At the instance of the defendant the jury were required to make a more definite answer to the question, but the second answer was no more specific than the first, and, as the second effort to obtain a specific answer had failed, it is not to be presumed that a better result would have been obtained by still other efforts; nor did the defendant waive its right to object to the finding by failing to request the court to have the effort repeated.</p> <p>4. - Finding and Evidence. A finding of a jury upon a specific and controlling question must be deemed to be as full and definite an answer as the testimony in the case will warrant.</p>