Re: [CBQ] Split decision

["John Mitchell via Groups.Io" <icrr1680=yahoo.com@groups.io>]

This was in the old Common Law days, when contributory negligence was an absolute bar to recovery. That case, today, would produce a much different outcome! Today, the Doctrine of Comparative Negligence would allow for recovery based to the percentage each party was at fault and different states have different rules on how this is applied. 

On Tuesday, June 12, 2018 11:20 PM, Stephen Levine via Groups.Io <sjl_prodigynet=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Nice poetry
> On Jun 12, 2018, at 10:08 PM, Rupert Gamlen <gamlenz@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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)
>
>
>
>
> <winmail.dat>

_._,_._,_

---

Groups.io Links:

You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#55518) | Reply To Group | Mute This Topic | New Topic

Your Subscription | Contact Group Owner | Unsubscribe [archives@nauer.org]

_._,_._,_