[Download] "Westerdale v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co." by Supreme Court of Montana ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: Westerdale v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co.
• Author : Supreme Court of Montana
• Release Date : January 21, 1929
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 69 KB

Description

Personal Injuries ? Automobiles ? Railroad Crossing Accident ? Last Clear Chance Doctrine ? Evidence ? Sufficiency ? Actionable Negligence Provable by Indirect Evidence ? Trial ? Non-suit ? Directed Verdict ? How Evidence of Adversary to be Viewed in Passing on Motion. Trial ? Non-suit ? Directed Verdict ? Evidence to be Construed Most Favorably to Plaintiff. 1. On motion for non-suit at the close of plaintiffs case, or on motion for a directed verdict and for dismissal after all of the - Page 2 evidence has been introduced, the evidence relied upon by plaintiff for recovery must be construed in the light most favorable to him, and every fact must be deemed established which the evidence tends to prove. Personal Injuries ? Automobiles ? Railroad Crossing Accident ? Last Clear Chance Doctrine ? Evidence Held Sufficient to Go to Jury. 2. In an action against a railway company for injuries sustained by the occupants of an automobile in a crossing collision, right of recovery being based on the last clear chance doctrine, because of failure of defendant companys engineer to stop his locomotive after the impact until it had run about 640 feet, plaintiffs contending that the injuries suffered were not inflicted until after the locomotive had covered a distance of 500 feet, evidence held sufficient to warrant submission of the case to the jury as well as its verdict for plaintiffs. Same ? Actionable Negligence Provable by Indirect or Circumstantial Evidence, When. 3. Actionable negligence may be proved by indirect or circumstantial evidence when the circumstances tend to prove the efficient proximate cause relied upon and also tend to exclude any other. Same ? Duty of Locomotive Engineer to Use Reasonable Care to Stop Engine After Collision ? Instruction ? Proper Refusal. 4. Where a locomotive engineer observes an automobile moving on to the railway track ahead of the engine, it is his duty to act on the supposition that it is occupied and he may not defend an action of the nature of the above (par. 2) in running a greater distance after the impact with the automobile than necessary if he had used reasonable care in an endeavor to stop it, by claiming that he did not know the occupants had been seriously injured by the collision, and therefore an offered instruction that before recovery could be had plaintiffs were required to prove that the engineer knew that serious injury had been inflicted upon the occupants of the automobile and that they were still in it after the collision, was properly refused.

Free Books Download "Westerdale v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co." PDF ePub Kindle