Court Opinion

ID: 9551535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:54:49.59698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:05.392855
License: Public Domain

Kaul, J.,
dissenting: I cannot agree that the evidence in this case is sufficient to make a submissible question whether the crossing was more than ordinarily dangerous. This being the case, under the well-established rule (Jennings v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 211 Kan. 389, 506 P. 2d 1125; and Sexsmith v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 209 Kan. 99, 495 P. 2d 930), the trial court erred in failing to determine the question as a matter of law and directing a verdict for defendant.