Reynolds v. Mink
Citations
- 111 F. 692
- 49 C.C.A. 549
- 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4417
Syllabus
<p>Railroads—Collision with Hand Car—Action for Injury.</p> <p>' The complaint in an action against a railroad company alleged that plaintiff and others were constructing a telegraph line along defendant’s right of way, and that through an arrangement made by the telegraph company, for whom they were working, defendant furnished them with a hand car to use in going to and from their work over defendant’s track; that when they were coming in from work one evening, and after they had entered the city and were approaching the station, the hand car was struck by a train coming from behind them, and thrown from the track, killing one of the men and injuring plaintiff; that the train was not on regular time, was running at a much greater siieed than permitted by the city ordinances, which were set out, and that it failed to give any of the station or crossing signals required by said ■ ordinances, by reason of which facts plaintiff and his companions, who were facing the other way, did not know of its approach until they were struck; also that the engineer could have seen them for half a mile before striking their car. Held, that such complaint was not subject to a general demurrer on the ground that it did not state facts constituting a cause of action.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- granting leave to amend where defendant’s counsel “completely rebuffed or substantially delayed” plaintiff’s efforts to discover the identities of officers with whom he interacted
- permitting replacement of John Doe defendants after limitations period had expired where plaintiff’s failure to timely do so was caused by defendants’ failure to respond to discovery requests
- permitting replacement of John Doe defendants after limitations period had expired where plaintiff’s failure to timely do so was caused by defendants’ failure to respond to discovery requests
- permitting replacement of John Doe defendants after limitations period had expired where plaintiff’s failure to timely do so was caused by defendants’ failure to respond to discovery requests
- finding the original complaint “contained considerable detail regarding the roles of John Doe 1 and Jane Doe 1 and [the plaintiff’s] interaction with those officers as well as with the other unidentified officers”
- permitting replacement of John Doe defendants after limitations period had expired where plaintiff's failure to timely do so was caused by defendants' unreasonable delay in producing relevant information that the plaintiff could use to identify the \Doe\ parties
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Thayer
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.