Belle of Nelson Distilling Co. v. Riggs
| Decision Date | 18 March 1898 |
| Citation | 104 Ky. 1,45 S.W. 99 |
| Parties | BELLE OF NELSON DISTILLING CO. v. RIGGS. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from circuit court, Nelson county.
"To be officially reported."
Action by Samuel Riggs against the Belle of Nelson Distilling Company. From a judgment on a verdict in favor of plaintiff defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Barnett Miller & Barnett, Pirtle & Trabue, and Nat W. Halstead, for appellant.
John S Kelley and E. E. McKay, for appellee.
While working as a day laborer for the appellant distilling company, the appellee was injured by the fall of an elevator loaded with barrels of whisky which he was engaged in ricking. On the first trial of his suit for damages a verdict was rendered in his favor for the sum of $4,000. The trial court ordered a new trial, because, it is said, of the admission of incompetent evidence; and on a second trial a verdict for the sum of $4,250 resulted, from the judgment on which this appeal is prosecuted by the company. The proof conduces to show that the appellee is almost a helpless cripple, as a result of his fall, and it is fairly established that the defective construction and condition of the elevator are responsible therefor,--a construction and condition either known to the company's agents or easily ascertainable by such inspection and care as the law imposes on the master when furnishing machinery for the use of the servants.
The first error complained of is that, in the opening and closing statement, counsel for appellee made reference to an accident insurance policy supposed to have been held by the company on the life, etc., of its employés, including appellee. But, in view of the fact the statements themselves were indefinite and the references in the proof to such policies were distinctly pronounced by the court as incompetent and not germane to the issues on trial, we are satisfied the court ought not, at request of counsel for appellant, to have discharged the jury by reason of such allusions. No intelligent juror could have been deceived or misled by such statement. In this connection, the objection to such testimony, allowed to get before the jury with respect to such a policy, may be disposed of. It became a matter of inquiry as to whether or not the agents of the company had informed its president or managing officers of the accident to appellee, and, in attempting to show that such knowledge had come to them, the appellee introduced a physician, who had made a detailed written statement of appellee's condition, and it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
May v. Northern P. Ry. Co.
... ... Belt E. L. Co ... v. Allen is affirmed in Distilling Co. v. Riggs, 104 ... Ky. 1. 45 S.W. 99, and in Railroad Co. v ... ...
-
May v. N. Pac. Ry. Co.
...200, and, so far as we are aware, the last decision from that courts asserts the power. Belt E. L. Co. v. Allen is affirmed in Distilling Co. v. Riggs, 104 Ky. 1. 45 S. W. 99, and in Railroad Co. v. Simpson, 111 Ky. 754, 64 S. W. 733. In Wanek v. Winon, 78 Minn. 98, 80 N. W. 851, 446 L. R. ......
-
Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. Brandon
... ... the sound discretion of the court." Belle of Nelson ... Distilling Co. v. Riggs, 104 Ky. 1, 45 S.W. 99, 20 ... ...
-
Logan v. Porter
...that the lower court did not err in instructing the jury as it did, in view of the holding of this Court in Belle of Nelson Distilling Co. v. Riggs, 104 Ky. 1, 45 S.W. 99. This opinion sets forth the doctrine of law, adhered to in a long line of decisions by this Court, that it is not suffi......