Case Name: Mrs. Anna Glenn, as Next Friend, etc., Appellant, v. The Missouri Pacific Railway Company, Appellee
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1912-12-07
Citations: 88 Kan. 235
Docket Number: No. 17,678
Parties: Mrs. Anna Glenn, as Next Friend, etc., Appellant, v. The Missouri Pacific Railway Company, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 88
Pages: 235–236

Head Matter:
Mrs. Anna Glenn, as Next Friend, etc., Appellant, v. The Missouri Pacific Railway Company, Appellee.
No. 17,678.
opinion on rehearing.
HEADNOTE BY THE REPORTER.
Trial — Practice — Opening Statement—Motion for Judgment. Where, in an action for negligence, the plaintiff’s counsel in the opening statement to the jury undertakes to detail all the facts upon which negligence is predicated, a motion for judgment should be sustained if it affirmatively appears that the facts stated do not justify any inference of negligence against the defendant.
Appeal from Chautauqua district court.
Opinion on rehearing filed December 7, 1912.
Reversal sustained.
(For original opinion, see 87 Kan. 391, 124 Pac. 420.)
W. H. Sproul, and J. A. Ferrell, both of Sedan, for the appellant.
C. E. Benton, and W. P. Dillard, both- of Fort Scott, for the appellee; Carl Ackarman, of Sedan, of counsel:

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
The court is satisfied with the decision in this case (87 Kan. 391, 124 Pac. 420) and with the - opinion therein, but to be more explicit adds the following :
In an action for negligence, when the petition states a cause of action and the plaintiff, in the. opening statement to the jury, undertakes to detail all the facts upon which negligence is predicated, a motion for judgment against the plaintiff on the statement should be sustained if it affirmatively -appears that the facts stated do not justify any inference of negligence against the defendant; otherwise the motion should be overruled. The facts stated in this case do not affirmatively exculpate the defendant from the charge of negligence, but the question of negligence remains for the determination of the jury upon all the facts and circumstances which may be disclosed by the evidence. Therefore the motion should have been overruled.
We adhere to the decision heretofore rendered in the case.