(Download) "Skelton v. Great Northern Ry. Co." by Supreme Court of Montana # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Skelton v. Great Northern Ry. Co.
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 13, 1940
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 61 KB
Description
Personal Injuries ? Railroad Accident ? Shipper of Livestock Traveling on Stock Train Injured by Violent Jerk of Train ? Conflicting Instructions ? New Trial Properly Granted. Appeal and Error ? New Trial ? Granting or Refusal of Motion in Discretion of Trial Court. 1. The granting or refusal to grant a motion for new trial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its order will be reversed only for manifest abuse of that discretion. Trial ? Instructions ? Giving of Conflicting Instructions Reversible Error. 2. The giving of conflicting instructions to the jury is reversible error. Carriers ? Railroads ? Personal Injuries ? Shipper of Livestock Traveling on Stock Train ? Liability of Carrier ? Conflicting Instructions ? New Trial Properly Granted. 3. In an action by the shipper of livestock for injuries sustained by him while riding in a coach attached to a freight train carrying stock, caused by a violent jerk of the train, an instruction was given that in order for plaintiff to recover he was required to prove not only that the jerk was violent, unusual and unnecessary, but also that it was the result of defendant companys negligence (see par. 4), in direct conflict with another paragraph of the charge that proof of the violent jerk was alone sufficient to warrant a finding of negligence; held that under rule 2 above, the trial court did not err in granting the unsuccessful plaintiff a new trial. Same ? Complaint ? Allegations of Causes Resulting in Accident ? Surplusage. 4. A passenger riding in a coach attached to a stock train who was injured while the train was in motion, was not required to allege or - Page 258 prove the particular cause or causes which resulted in the accident, and where he did so allege, his allegations should be treated as surplusage, plaintiff being entitled to rely upon his prima facie case without attempting to substantiate such allegations. Same ? Ambiguity in Instructions. 5. In an action of the above nature an instruction that plaintiff by traveling on a stock train assumed the risks reasonably incident to the operation of such a train and that if a violent jerk of the train was one of such incidents, he could not recover, and one that he was entitled to recover if the jerk was so violent as to show want of the highest degree of care, should, to prevent ambiguity have been given in one instruction.
 "Skelton v. Great Northern Ry. Co." by Supreme Court of Montana # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}