Rockhold v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.

Citations

• 97 Kan. 715
• 156 P. 775
• 1916 Kan. LEXIS 384

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT. '</p> <p>1. Negligence' — Coemployee— Personal Injuries — Evidence. The evidence examined and held to warrant a finding of negligence on the part of the engineer of a switch engine which struck a brakeman who, in the course of duty, alighted from the tender of a road engine as it was in the act of stopping on a track next to the one which the switch engine was using.</p> <p>2. Same — No Assumption of Risk — Statutes. The brakeman did not assume the risk of injury occasioned by the negligence of the engineer, because of the provisions of section 1 of chapter 239 of the Laws of 1911, making a railway company liable in damages to an employee for injuries resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of a coemployee.</p> <p>3. Same — Contributory Negligence — DimimMon of Damages. Contributory negligence of the brakeman did not bar. recovery of damages from the railway company and could be considered only in diminution of damages. (Laws 1911, ch. 239, § 2.)</p> <p>4. Same — Contributory Negligence — Findings—Verdict Not Excessive. The evidence examined and held the jury were justified in acquitting the brakeman of great fault. Presumably the amount of negligence attributed to him was small, and in the absence of special findings it can not be said that the jury did not deal justly in the matter of damages, the verdict being for a reasonable sum.</p> <p>5. Same — Negligence of Coemployee — Proximate Cause of Injuries¡ When the brakeman alighted he slipped on icy ground, was overbalanced by the weight of an appliance which he held in one hand, and in order to regain his balance took a step.or two toward the track on which the switch engine was negligently operated. He was struck by the pilot bar of the switch engine and injured. Held, the negligence of the engineer of the switch engine was the proximate cause of the injury.</p> <p>6. Same — Injuries—Findings—Damages. The evidence examined and held that the jury were authorized to conclude that