Cross References to Related Sections:

Action for wrongful death, see 60-1901 et seq.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. "Clearance of obstructions," defined; projecting rail not an obstruction. Palomino v. Railway Co., 91 Kan. 556, 558, 138 P. 616.

2. Finding of negligence of coemployee sufficient to sustain verdict. Hisle v. Railway Co., 91 Kan. 572, 579, 138 P. 610.

3. Refusal of instructions concerning insufficiencies referred to; held not material. Hisle v. Railway Co., 91 Kan. 572, 579, 138 P. 610.

4. Foreman not answerable for negligence of subforeman. Hisle v. Railway Co., 91 Kan. 572, 579, 138 P. 610.

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

6. Brakeman injured through negligence of coemployee; no assumption of risk. Rockhold v. Railway Co., 97 Kan. 715, 719, 156 P. 775.

7. Railroad repair shop; when governed by this act; factory act. Truman v. Railroad Co., 98 Kan. 761, 764, 161 P. 587.

8. Code provision concerning wrongful death not repealed by this act. Harwood v. Railway Co., 101 Kan. 215, 216, 217, 171 P. 354.

9. Limitation of action under this act considered. Harwood v. Railway Co., 101 Kan. 215, 216, 217, 171 P. 354.

10. Neither contributory negligence nor the assumption of risk is defense. Defenbaugh v. Railroad Co., 102 Kan. 569, 573, 171 P. 647.

11. Defense of assumption of risk eliminated by this act. Quilantan v. Railroad Co., 109 Kan. 111, 115, 197 P. 1095.

12. State and federal employers' liability act similar in effect. Kasper v. Railway Co., 111 Kan. 267, 270, 207 P. 203.

13. Same rules of law control as in federal acts. Koska v. Railroad Co., 114 Kan. 126, 128, 217 P. 293.

14. Liability to dependents where death results to employee considered. Fuller v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rly. Co., 124 Kan. 66, 70, 257 P. 971.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.