St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Leftwich
Citations
- 117 F. 127
- 54 C.C.A. 1
- 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4417
Syllabus
<p>1. Carriers — Injury to Passenger — Contributory Negligence — When Question for Jury—Instance.</p> <p>The question whether or not a passenger who had just boarded the smoking car, and was passing through that car, over the platform, to the next coach in the rear, where he intended to ride, was guilty of contributory negligence because he turned aside, grasped the railings on both sides of the steps of the platform of the ear, and stepped down upon the upper step for the purpose of expectorating and throwing the contents of his month clear of the train, was a question for the jury, and not for the court.</p> <p>8. Same—Jury.</p> <p>It is only when all reasonable men, in the honest exercise of a fair and impartial judgment, would draw the same conclusion from the facts which condition the issue of negligence or contributory negligence, that it is the duty of the court to withdraw that question from the jury; and it is not clear that all reasonable men would agree that there was any lack of ordinary care in the act of the plaintiff in this case.</p> <p>8. Same—Riding in Place 'not Designed for Passengers.</p> <p>A passenger who, without any reasonable cause or excuse, rides on a platform or on the steps of, a railway car, or on an engine, or on a hand car, or on a freight or baggage car, or in any other place not designed for the carriage of passengers, is guilty of negligence which may bar his recovery of damages resulting from the concurring- negligence of the railway company.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that “[b]ecause 11 there are several grounds upon which Islands may be relying in this matter, the Court finds 12 |! that its bare assertion of the defense provides inadequate notice”
- noting that a motion to strike must be brought within 21 days of the defendant filing its answer
- holding a defendant is only required to “state the 7 nature and grounds for the affirmative defense”
- declining to strike negative 8 defense because “[n]egative defenses may also be raised in [the] answer”
- denying partial summary judgment on defenses of 17 lack of standing and failure to state a claim, explaining that “simple mislabeling . . . is not 18 grounds for striking or granting partial summary judgment on [the mislabeled] defenses”
- granting motion to strike the defense of fundamental alteration 20 with leave to amend where the defense failed “to provide fair notice of its defense, because its answer provides no indication of the grounds for its assertion of fundamental 39 | alteration”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Sanborn
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.