BRHSLIST
[Top] [All Lists]

[CBQ] Split decision

To: 'CBQ Group' <CBQ@groups.io>
Subject: [CBQ] Split decision
From: "Rupert Gamlen" <gamlenz@hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 03:08:15 +0000
Accept-language: en-NZ, en-US
Delivered-to: unknown
Delivered-to: archives@nauer.org
Delivered-to: mailing list CBQ@groups.io
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=groups.io; q=dns/txt; s=20140610; t=1528859305; bh=1AV2FdHzZ5kmYu7Gi44rUZP6I/aXoXwi7o8rB4xuElQ=; h=Content-Type:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To; b=NoNrm7IGOiIMFrEX+YmXM5UHNVu+zioNooP8QCRIpgFWZ+wkHwUE1ouYYT0Ru8354SZ vA+YViKdmURbNZRekCzpIRw5/LaPod1fXAlR4VBOJwtZlHhjloGngl05LfkYEGTnH9lWF 57gS9OqA20t9AvveOi8XTH06aZyqfanKXXA=
List-id: <CBQ.groups.io>
List-unsubscribe: <https://groups.io/g/CBQ/unsub>
Mailing-list: list CBQ@groups.io; contact CBQ+owner@groups.io
Reply-to: CBQ@groups.io
Sender: CBQ@groups.io
Thread-index: AdQCwthjwFgo7xhAT8eXpGljIE0yxg==
Thread-topic: Split decision
As things are a bit quiet, here is a report from Railway Review 1894.

A decidedly novel decision was lately handed down in the United States circuit 
court at Council Bluffs. It appears that a Mrs. Honey, while on her way to the 
depot at Red Oak. Ia., a station on the C., B. & Q. R. R., was run over and 
permanently crippled by a switch engine. She sued the Burlington road, and her 
husband sued the same road. Her suit was for pain and suffering endured by her 
and the injuries caused to her person. His suit was for loss of society of his 
wife and her aid in taking care of the household and for expense of medical 
attendance, etc., during his wife's illness consequent upon the accident.

Judge Shiras instructed the jury that before a judgment could be found against 
the company in either case the jury must find if the injury was caused by the 
negligence of the company; and that if the negligence of Mrs. Honey contributed 
to the  injury, Mrs. Honey could not recover. Her negligence defeated her 
recovery. But that Mr. Honey could recover if the company was negligent, even 
though his wife's negligence contributed to the injury. Her contributory 
negligence would not defeat her husband's right to recover damages. The two 
suits were tried together and the jury refused to give Mrs. Honey any damages, 
but gave Mr Honey $3,000 damages.


And my take on the situation -

Mrs Honey sued for money,
But the jury said
She and the Q were both to blame
So she would get no bread*

Her other half was missing out
On homely things and aid
To run the household without her
He felt he should be paid

The fault lay with the Burlington
The jurymen agreed
The foreman replied to the judge
The husband is in need

Of cash to pay the doctor's bills
And help to do the cooking
He knew the error was his wife's
Because she was not looking

But when he comes home from his work
His wife is on her back
She cannot make him comfortable
Because she crossed the track

The switcher could have stopped for her
The negligence is clear
The jury liked the husband's case
He'll get his justice here

The railroad clearly was at fault
But so was Mrs Honey
So unlike his poor crippled wife
The husband gets the money

(* rhyming slang
"bread & honey" - money)


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#55516): https://groups.io/g/CBQ/message/55516
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/22062643/703214
Group Owner: CBQ+owner@groups.io
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/CBQ/leave/1544929/691670059/xyzzy  
[archives@nauer.org]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>