Case ID: kan_86/html/0982-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Neva Smith, Appellee, v. The Metropolitan Street Railway Company, Appellant.
    
    No. 17,557.
    Appeal from Wyandotte district court, division No. 1.
    Opinion filed April 6, 1912.
    Affirmed.
    
      O. L. Miller, and C. A. Miller, for the appellant; Samuel Maher, of counsel.
    . Thomas A. Pollock, and Edward C. Little, for the appellee.
   Per Curiam:

The plaintiff claimed she attempted to board a standing car. The defendant claimed the injury did not happen that way,'but that she attempted to hoard a moving car. The allegation of the answer was that the plaintiff “thereby caused'-’ any injury she may have received. Of course proximate cause was meant. The requested instruction was that she received her injury, if any, “by reason of” such attempt — proximate cause again. In the instructions given the court defined proximate ■cause so the jury could not fail to understand what was meant. The burden of proof was imposed upon the plaintiff to make out a case on her theory before she could recover, and that was sufficient. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.