Turner v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.

Citations

• 106 Kan. 591
• 189 P. 376
• 1920 Kan. LEXIS 611

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Negligence — Railroad Crossing — Obstructions—Pleadings—Rulings of Court It was not error to receive testimony under the petition, to overrule the demurrer to the plaintiffs’ evidence, or to refuse the defendant’s request for an instructed verdict.</p> <p>2. Same — Instruction—“Stop, Look and Listen.” An instruction touchingthe duty of the driver of the vehicle in respect to stopping, looking, and listening, held proper.</p> <p>3. Same. Certain instructions were properly refused because substantially included in those given by the court.</p> <p>4. Same. A charge touching the lateness of the train which it is alleged struck the plantiff’s daughter, held proper.</p> <p>5. Same — Condition of Crossing — Findings. The findings as to the condition of the crossing and the striking of the plaintiffs’ daughter by the train, held to have been supported by the. evidence.</p> <p>6. Same — Rejected Evidence — Requested Instructions Refused The refusal to receive in evidence the speed ordinance offered by the plaintiffs, and the refusal of the plaintiffs’ requested instruction as to wantonness and last clear chance, held not to constitute material • error.</p> <p>7. Same — Contributory Negligence Fatal to Recovery. Under the settled rule that one cannot recover for an injury caused by his own carelessness, the plaintiffs are barred because the driver crossed the track without stopping to ascertain whether or not a train was approaching.</p>