CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Receiver operating railroad liable for damages under statute. Rouse v. Redinger, 1 Kan. App. 355, 361, 41 P. 433.

2. Negligence not presumed but must be alleged and proved. U. P. Rly. Co. v. Mahaffy, 4 Kan. App. 88, 89, 46 P. 187.

3. Injury on handcar while returning from work; railroad liable. Union Trust Co. v. Thomason, 25 Kan. 1, 3, 4.

4. Statute held valid; statute adopted from Iowa; decisions applicable. Mo. P. Rly. Co. v. Haley, Adm'r, etc., 25 Kan. 35, 53.

5. Railway company cannot contract for waiver of liability hereunder. Kan. P. Rly. Co. v. Peavey, 29 Kan. 169, 174.

6. Act must be that of agent or employee having authority. Solomon Rld. Co. v. Jones, 30 Kan. 601, 609, 2 P. 657.

7. Two-year statute of limitation applies to actions brought hereunder. A. T. & S. F. Rld. Co. v. King, 31 Kan. 708, 710, 3 P. 565. Criticized: Hollinger v. Dickinson County, 115 Kan. 92, 222 P. 136.

8. Act does not deny equal protection of the law. Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Mackey, 33 Kan. 298, 301, 6 P. 291. Affirmed: Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Mackey, 127 U.S. 205, 8 S. Ct. 1161, 32 L.Ed. 107.

9. Degree of care which must be exercised by employees considered. Mo. Pac. Rly. Co. v. Mackey, 33 Kan. 298, 301, 6 P. 291. Affirmed: Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Mackey, 127 U.S. 205, 8 S. Ct. 1161, 32 L.Ed. 107.

10. Common-law rule concerning injury through negligence of coemployee abrogated. U. P. Rly. Co. v. Harris, 33 Kan. 416, 419, 6 P. 571.

11. Railroad company held liable for injury through negligence of coemployee. U. P. Rly. Co. v. Harris, 33 Kan. 416, 419, 6 P. 571.

12. Incompetence of coemployee; defective materials; when risk assumed by employee. Kan. P. Rly. Co. v. Peavey, 34 Kan. 472, 478, 8 P. 780.

13. Rules of contributory negligence not abolished by this act. Kan. P. Rly. Co. v. Peavey, 34 Kan. 472, 478, 8 P. 780.

14. Acts of coemployees which constitute culpable negligence considered. A. T. & S. F. Rld. Co. v. Koehler, Adm'x, 37 Kan. 463, 469, 15 P. 567.

15. Act held constitutional and valid. A. T. & S. F. Rld. Co. v. Koehler, Adm'x, 37 Kan. 463, 469, 15 P. 567.

16. Question of negligence considered; held doubtful whether any negligence shown. C. Kan. & N. Rly. Co. v. Brown, 44 Kan. 384, 391, 24 P. 497.

17. Section is applicable to all railroads, but not construction companies. Beeson v. Busenbark, 44 Kan. 669, 25 P. 48.

18. Negligence of coemployee; bridge carpenter, injured loading timbers, may recover. C. Kan. & W. Rly. Co. v. Pontius, 52 Kan. 264, 265, 34 P. 739. Affirmed: Chicago, Kan. & W. R. Co. v. Pontius, 157 U.S. 209, 15 S. Ct. 585, 39 L.Ed. 675.

19. Liability of receiver determined by rules applicable to railroad company. Rouse v. Harry, 55 Kan. 589, 594, 40 P. 1007.

20. Action barred, not revived by ingrafting upon action not barred. A. T. & S. F. Rld. Co. v. Schroeder, 56 Kan. 731, 44 P. 1093.

21. Stonemason employed on depot not within provisions of act. Railway Co. v. Medaris, 60 Kan. 151, 55 P. 875.

22. Liability for injury of employee as between corporation and receivers. Railway Co. v. Bricker, 65 Kan. 321, 326, 69 P. 328.

23. Injury to workman; negligence; findings of jury held inconsistent. Railway Co. v. Hamlin, 67 Kan. 476, 73 P. 58.

24. Defective appliance; assumption of risk; servant relieved by master's promise. Railway Co. v. Sledge, 68 Kan. 321, 74 P. 1111.

25. Recklessness of servant is a question for the jury. Railway Co. v. Sledge, 68 Kan. 321, 74 P. 1111.

26. Whether engineer guilty of negligence question for jury. Railway Co. v. Johnson, 69 Kan. 721, 77 P. 576.

27. Failure to guard against accident; when negligence imputable considered. Railway Co. v. Johnson, 69 Kan. 721, 77 P. 576.

28. Injury to employee; notice to company of defective apparatus inferred. Brinkmeier v. Railway Co., 69 Kan. 738, 77 P. 586.

29. Risk not assumed unless knowledge of danger shown or imputed. Brinkmeier v. Railway Co., 69 Kan. 738, 77 P. 586.

30. Knowledge of defect is not necessarily knowledge of danger. Brinkmeier v. Railway Co., 69 Kan. 738, 77 P. 586.

31. When choice of dangerous way amounts to negligence considered. Brinkmeier v. Railway Co., 69 Kan. 738, 77 P. 586.

32. Injury held due to neglect of duty of workman. Higgins v. Railway Co., 70 Kan. 814, 79 P. 679.

33. Student brakeman held to be employee of railway company. Railway Co. v. Fronk, 74 Kan. 519, 526, 87 P. 698.

34. Contract releasing company from liability for negligence held void. Railway Co. v. Fronk, 74 Kan. 519, 526, 87 P. 698.

35. Section considered in discussing assumption of risk under factory act. Manufacturing Co. v. Bloom, 76 Kan. 127, 131, 90 P. 821.

36. Railroad company liable to express messenger for negligence regardless of release. Sewell v. Railway Co., 78 Kan. 1, 16, 17, 22, 96 P. 1007.

37. Section considered in discussing scope of factory act. Caspar v. Lewin, 82 Kan. 604, 635, 109 P. 657.

38. Section not in conflict with fourteenth amendment to federal constitution. Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Mackey, 127 U.S. 205, 8 S. Ct. 1161, 32 L.Ed. 107.

39. Section not unconstitutional as special legislation: corporations included. Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Mackey, 127 U.S. 205, 8 S. Ct. 1161, 32 L.Ed. 107.

40. Section does not discriminate against railroad corporation irrespective of employment. Chicago, Kan. & W. R. Co. v. Pontius, 157 U.S. 209, 15 S. Ct. 585, 39 L.Ed. 675.

41. Carpenter engaged in loading timbers on car held within act. Chicago, Kan. & W. R. Co. v. Pontius, 157 U.S. 209, 15 S. Ct. 585, 39 L.Ed. 675.

42. Injury through incompetency of coemployee; law of forum governs limitation. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Wyler, 158 U.S. 285, 15 S. Ct. 877, 39 L.Ed. 983.

43. Injury in one state; action in another; procedure considered. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Wyler, 158 U.S. 285, 15 S. Ct. 877, 39 L.Ed. 983.

44. Statute not unconstitutional as denial of equal protection laws. Tullis v. Lake Erie & Western R. Co., 175 U.S. 348, 20 S. Ct. 136, 44 L.Ed. 192.

45. Interpretation of state court not disregarded by federal supreme court. Tullis v. Lake Erie & Western R. Co., 175 U.S. 348, 20 S. Ct. 136, 44 L.Ed. 192.

46. Construction not given which will render act unconstitutional. Tullis v. Lake Erie & Western R. Co., 175 U.S. 348, 20 S. Ct. 136, 44 L.Ed. 192.

47. Assumption of risk and contributory negligence of employee considered. Railroad Co. v. Burgess, 72 Kan. 454, 83 P. 991.

48. Injury to employee; negligence of fellow servant; statutory liability of master. Railway Co. v. Green, 75 Kan. 504, 512, 89 P. 1042.

49. Requirement of notice applies only to actions brought under statute. Railroad Co. v. Little, 75 Kan. 716, 719, 90 P. 447.

50. Contributory negligence shown by statement attached to petition; recovery barred. Railway Co. v. Schroll, 76 Kan. 572, 573, 92 P. 596.

51. Statements made by employee in notice, etc., may be considered. Railway Co. v. Hastings, 79 Kan. 499, 100 P. 68.

52. Notice may be served on person in charge of depot. Dowell v. Railway Co., 83 Kan. 562, 563, 573, 112 P. 136. Affirmed: Chi., R. I. & Pac. Ry. v. Dowell, 229 U.S. 102, 33 S. Ct. 684, 57 L.Ed. 1090.

53. Section man injured by fellow laborer within protection of act. Smith v. Railway Co., 82 Kan. 248, 249, 108 P. 76.

54. Allegation concerning notice considered surplusage where notice not required. Young v. Railway Co., 82 Kan. 332, 108 P. 99.

55. Contributory negligence would not wholly relieve railroad company. Harper v. Railway Co., 95 Kan. 201, 204, 147 P. 1106.

56. Statute excludes application of fellow-servant rule. Brooks v. Railway Co., 95 Kan. 732, 736, 148 P. 845.

57. Elimination of defense of assumption of risk considered. Rockhold v. Railway Co., 97 Kan. 715, 719, 156 P. 775.

58. Opinion in 31 Kan. 708, 3 P. 565, limiting time for bringing action to two years disapproved. Hollinger v. Dickinson County, 115 Kan. 92, 93, 222 P. 136.

59. Company not liable where fireman jumps from engine at suggestion from engineer. Gentry v. Davis, Agent, 115 Kan. 335, 343, 222 P. 769, 772.

60. Statute construed as to liability where death resulted to employee. Fuller v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rly. Co., 124 Kan. 66, 70, 257 P. 971.

61. Amendment of the federal employers' liability act in 1939 was intended to bring within scope of that act all employees whose work at the time of injury was not in actual interstate transportation or a part of it, but any part of whose work furthered interstate commerce, or in any way affected such commerce directly or closely, and substantially. Piggue v. Baldwin, 154 Kan. 708, Syl. 4, 121 P.2d 183.

62. A railroad track which carries both interstate and intrastate traffic is an instrumentality of interstate commerce. Piggue v. Baldwin, 154 Kan. 708, Syl. 2, 121 P.2d 183.

63. One who is repairing a railroad car used to keep interstate tracks clear is in interstate commerce. Piggue v. Baldwin, 154 Kan. 708, 712, 121 P.2d 183.

64. When facts are established, it is a question of law as to which act employee was subject. Skanks v. Union Pac. Rld. Co., 155 Kan. 584, 586, 127 P.2d 431.