City of Fort Wayne v. Breese
Decision Date | 22 March 1890 |
Docket Number | 14,120 |
Parties | The City of Fort Wayne v. Breese |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Petition for a Rehearing Overruled May 15, 1890.
From the Allen Superior Court.
Judgment affirmed, at costs of appellant.
H Colerick, for appellant.
J. B Harper, for appellee.
This action was brought by the appellee against the appellant to recover for damages alleged to have been sustained by her in falling upon a public sidewalk in the city of Fort Wayne. Issue was joined, and there was a trial, resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of appellee for $ 1,040. Appellant filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and exceptions reserved. Two errors are assigned: 1st. That the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; and, 2d. That the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. The first alleged error is not discussed, and is therefore waived.
A reversal of the judgment is asked, for two reasons: First. It is claimed that the undisputed evidence shows the appellee to have been guilty of contributory negligence; and, Second. That the damages are excessive.
Interrogatories were submitted to and answered by the jury. The interrogatories and answers are as follows:
It is conceded by counsel for the appellant that the sidewalk was out of repair and dangerous, and that the city was guilty of negligence, but the sole ground of complaint is that the evidence shows the appellee guilty of contributory negligence.
It is well settled by numerous decisions of this court, that one is not bound to abandon the use of a street or sidewalk, even if he knows it to be out of repair, unless the condition of the street or sidewalk be so defective as to render it impassible, or as to be apparent to a person of common understanding that to enter upon it at all would be dangerous.
A succinct statement of the law is stated by Mitchell, J., in delivering the opinion of the court in the case of Town of Gosport v. Evans, 112 Ind. 133, 13 N.E. 256, as follows:
This rule of law is not seriously controverted by counsel for the appellant or appellee, but the controversy is rather in applying the rule to facts in the case, counsel differing widely as to what the evidence establishes. We think this statement of the law conclusive of the case, and that the verdict of the jury and judgment must be sustained. The answers to interrogatories fully support the verdict, and if there is evidence to support the general verdict...
To continue reading
Request your trial