Saunders v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

Citations

• 86 Kan. 56
• 119 P. 552
• 1911 Kan. LEXIS 181

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Findings op Jury — Practice, District Court. Where a party does not present questions of fact to be submitted to a jury he may, if he chooses, adopt as his own the questions submitted by the adverse party and join in the request that they be answered, but it is too late to insist upon this privilege after a general verdict against him has been received and the questions so submitted by the other party have been returned unanswered.</p> <p>2. - Same. Special questions presented by the defendant written under the caption:</p> <p>“interrogatories propounded by the dependant to BE answered IN CASE THE VERDICT IS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS”</p> <p>were submitted to the jury and returned unanswered, the verdict being for the defendant. It is held that the submission of the questions in this form was not an inducement to the jury to find for the defendant, affording grounds for setting aside the verdict.</p> <p>3. Expert Witness — Evidence—Competency. The answers of an expert witness concerning the distance to which sparks could be thrown from a certain type of locomotive, and concerning the competency and skill of the engineer in charge of the locomotive which it is alleged caused the fire for which damages were sought, are considered, and without deciding upon the competency of the testimony under the issues presented it is held that it does not appear that the rulings, if erroneous, injuriously affected the substantial rights of the party objecting thereto, and that the judgment can not be reversed therefor.</p> <p>4. Substantial Rights — Technical Errors. The provisions of section 141 of the civil code relating to errors and defects that do not affect substantial rights, and section 581, relating to technical errors and irregularities, are compared and applied.</p>