Ecoff v. Central Indiana Gas Co.
Decision Date | 15 July 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 20684,No. 2,20684,2 |
Citation | 143 Ind.App. 119,238 N.E.2d 676 |
Parties | Voyle ECOFF and Vera Ecoff Carter, Appellants, v. CENTRAL INDIANA GAS COMPANY, Appellee |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Stewart & Austin, Kelley, Arnold & Kelley, Anderson, Webb, Webb & Smith, Noblesville, for appellants.
Kiley, Osborn, Kiley & Harker, Marion, Christian, Waltz, White, & Klotz, Noblesville, for appellee.
This is an action brought by the appellants, Voyle Ecoff and Vera Ecoff Carter, against the appellee, Central Indiana Gas Company, for property damage arising out of an explosion. The issues were formed by the appellants' amended complaint and the appellee's answer thereto.
At the conclusion of appellants' evidence the appellee filed a motion requesting a directed verdict, which the court sustained, and directed the jury to return a verdict for the appellee. Upon such directed verdict judgment was entered accordingly. Appellants filed a motion for new trial, the pertinent parts of which appellants urge and argue as follows:
evidence.
evidence, to instruct the jury to return a verdict for the defendant.
Such motion was subsequently overruled and appellants now assign as error to this court the overruling of said motion.
The evidence discloses that the appellants were owners as tenants in common of a parcel of real estate which they had leased to one George W. Early, and upon which was located a gasoline service station. It further discloses that on January 20, 1958, an explosion occurred which completely destroyed the aforementioned property. Prior to and at the time of the explosion the appellee maintained gas lines near appellants' property. In their complaint appellants alleged that the appellee was negligent in the construction and maintenance of said gas lines and in permitting gas to leak from the lines. Appellants contend that these acts and omissions by the appellee were the cause of the explosion in question.
There are numerous cases which set forth the legal principles which govern the consideration of a motion for a directed verdict and peremptory instruction. These principles were cogently enunciated in Whitaker v. Borntrager (1954), 233 Ind. 678, 680, 122 N.E.2d 734, where the court stated that a trial court may properly give the trial jury a peremptory instruction to find for the defendant in the following instances:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mamula v. Ford Motor Co., 371A49
...plaintiff's case. Hendrix v. Harbelis, supra; Whitaker v. Borntrager (1954), 233 Ind. 678, 122 N.E.2d 734; Ecoff v. Central Indiana Gas Co. (1968), 143 Ind.App. 119, 238 N.E.2d 676; Stivers v. Old National Bank in Evansville (Ind.App.1970), 264 N.E.2d 339; Rouch v. Bisig, When passing on a ......
-
Gregory v. White Truck & Equipment Co., Inc.
...248 Ind. 619, 623, 230 N.E.2d 315, 318; Whitaker v. Borntrager (1954), 233 Ind. 678, 122 N.E.2d 734; Ecoff v. Central Indiana Gas Co. (1968), 143 Ind.App. 119, 238 N.E.2d 676; Stivers v. Old National Bank in Evansville (1970), 148 Ind.App. 196, 264 N.E.2d 339; Rouch v. Bisig (1970), 147 Ind......