Casey v. Ford Motor Company

• Decision Date: 11 April 1922
• Docket Number: 22039
• Citation: 187 N.W. 922,108 Neb. 352
• Parties: GEORGE CASEY, APPELLEE, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, APPELLANT
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

187 N.W. 922

108 Neb. 352

GEORGE CASEY, APPELLEE, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, APPELLANT

No. 22039

Supreme Court of Nebraska

April 11, 1922

APPEAL from the district court for Douglas county: L. B. DAY, JUDGE. Affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Gurley Fitch, West & Hickman, for appellant.

Crofoot Vinsonhaler, Fraser, Connolly & Stryker and George A. Keyser contra.

Heard before LETTON, DEAN and DAY, JJ., CLEMENTS (E. J.) and WELCH, District Judges.

OPINION

CLEMENTS, District Judge.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries which plaintiff sustained by being caught between the lintel of a doorway in the building of the defendant, Ford Motor Company, and a load of lumber on which he was riding. It is alleged that said accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant. The defendant denies that it was guilty of negligence, and alleges that plaintiff's own negligence was the cause of the accident. The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for plaintiff for $ 3,000, and a judgment was entered on said verdict. The defendant appeals.

There is little or no conflict in the evidence. The facts disclosed by the record, which are necessary to an understanding of the case, briefly stated, are as follows: During the year 1916 the defendant caused to be constructed a large building at the corner of Sixteenth and Cuming streets in the city of Omaha, Nebraska, which, on the 24th day of July of that year, it occupied and operated as an automobile assembling plant and for the storage and distribution of automobile parts and repairs. In the distribution of said parts and repairs the defendant purchased and had hauled into said building quantities of lumber which it used in boxing and crating same for shipment. The entrance through which vehicles were required to pass when entering said building consisted of a doorway through the outer wall on the west side, 8 feet and 11 inches in height, a passageway or vestibule extending east therefrom 15 feet, which was nine feet wide and about 15 or 16 feet high, with a doorway at its east end 8 feet and 5 inches high opening from the vestibule into the building. On July 24, 1916, defendant ordered of the C. N. Dietz Lumber Company 2,500 feet of lumber for boxing and crating, and directed that it be delivered at said building. Plaintiff, who was at that time employed by said lumber company, was sent by it with a team of horses and wagon to deliver said lumber to defendant. When he arrived with said load of lumber at the west entrance of defendant's building, he stopped his team, but was directed by some one in the building to drive in, which he proceeded to do. While doing so he was sitting on the top of the load with his legs hanging over its front end. The distance between the upper side of the load and the top of the outer doorway was not sufficient to permit plaintiff to pass while sitting in an upright position, so he bent his body forward, and in such stooping posture passed through said doorway without difficulty. He then assumed an upright position, but again stopped forward when the inner doorway was reached. The top of said doorway being six inches lower than the outer one, the space between it and the top of the load was insufficient to permit the passage of plaintiff's body, even in a stooping position, and he was severely crushed, bruised and injured.

There is no complaint as to the damages allowed being excessive, if plaintiff were entitled to recover, which defendant insists he is not. When all the evidence was in and both parties had rested, defendant moved the court to direct the jury to return a verdict for defendant, and tendered such a written instruction, with the request that it be given. Such motion was overruled and request refused. The only assignments of error in appellant's brief on which it relies for a reversal of the judgment of the lower court are based on the ruling of the court on such motion and request. These assignments both raise the same question, viz.: Is the evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury?

Defendant contends (1) that there is no evidence in the record tending to prove negligence on the part of defendant; and (2) that the evidence shows conclusively that plaintiff's negligence was the sole cause of the accident and injuries complained of. If either of said contentions is correct, then a verdict should have been directed for the defendant, and the judgment of the lower court will have to be reversed. In the consideration and determination of these questions the following well-settled rules may properly be applied, to wit: "Where different minds may reasonably draw diverse conclusions from the same facts as to whether or not they establish negligence or contributory negligence, those issues must be submitted to the jury." Perrine v. Union Stock Yards Co., 81 Neb. 790, 116 N.W. 776. Also Leon v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 102 Neb. 537, 167 N.W. 787. One who erects a building in which to conduct a certain business, and which is used for that purpose, is bound to construct and maintain the same in a reasonably safe condition for the purposes for which it is used; and a failure to do so may render the owner liable for damages for an injury resulting from such failure to a person who goes upon said premises by the express or implied invitation of said owner. Larson v. Red River Transportation Co., 111 Minn. 427, 127 N.W. 185; Tucker v. Draper, 62 Neb. 66, 86 N.W. 917.

The evidence shows that one of the purposes for which the doorways and passageway in defendant's building were intended and used was the admission into said building of vehicles loaded with lumber which was necessary for the conduct of defendant's business; that when plaintiff entered said building at the time of...