Danville Light, Power & Traction Co. v. Baldwin
| Decision Date | 04 December 1917 |
| Citation | 178 Ky. 184 |
| Parties | Danville Light, Power & Traction Company v. Baldwin. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Boyle Circuit Court.
ROBERT HARDING, JOHN W. RAWLINGS and EMMETT V. PURYEAR for appellant.
BAGBY & HUGUELY and HENRY JACKSON for appellee.
In June, 1915, the appellant employed appellee, Charles W. Baldwin, at $8.00 a day to assist in, or superintend, the installation of certain heavy machinery in its plant at Danville. One part of the machinery to be installed was a fly-wheel which, divided into two equal parts, weighing about 8,500 pounds each, had been delivered near to or just outside the defendant's building. At the time of the accident complained of, the lower half of the fly-wheel had been placed in the desired place in the building, and the upper half had been moved into the building and was being raised by means of a derrick or windlass, the cable of which extended into the building, through several pulleys, to the portion of the fly-wheel being elevated. Four other employes of defendant were turning the wheel or drum of the windlass, and in this way hoisting the upper half of the fly-wheel attached to the other end of the cable. Plaintiff was inside the building, watching the portion of the fly-wheel as it was being hoisted, and, after it had been lifted some little distance from the ground, it ceased to go up; and plaintiff went to the door of the building, through which the cable passed, and just as he reached the door the drum or wheel flew off the spindle and struck him with such force as to break his leg and otherwise injure him. The windlass, pulleys, cable and other apparatus, used in the operation, were the property of the plaintiff and furnished by him for the purpose, as part of the consideration for which he was being paid by defendant.
To recover for the injuries thus sustained, plaintiff instituted this action, alleging as the cause of his injuries the negligent operation of the windlass by the defendant, through its employes and agents. The defendant's answer was a traverse of the allegations of the petition and a plea of contributory negligence, which was traversed. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiff for $3,400.00, from which the defendant has appealed.
Among the numerous alleged errors of the trial court assigned as reasons for reversal, is the admission, over the objection and exception of defendant, of evidence that the defendant was protected by indemnity insurance against loss from accident to its employes, such as was involved in this case. That such evidence is incompetent and its admission reversible error is thoroughly established by frequent and uniform decisions of this court. Belle of Nelson Distillery Co. v. Riggs, 104 Ky. 1; Owensboro Wagon Co. v. Boling, 107 S. W. 264; Dow Wire Works Co. v. Morgan, 96 S. W. 520; W. G. Duncan Coal Co. v. Thompson, 157 Ky. 304. Plaintiff, over the objection and exception of the defendant, was permitted to introduce such evidence. Counsel for plaintiff, while conceding the rule, insist that the evidence was admissible here as a legitimate cross-examination of one of defendant's witnesses upon a proposition introduced in evidence by defendant. But, this is not true, as the question of insurance was in nowise involved in any evidence introduced by defendant. It is manifest, therefore, that the court, in admitting this evidence, erred to the prejudice of the defendant.
As the judgment must be reversed, for the reason indicated, it will not be necessary to consider the other questions raised except for the purposes of a new trial; and for that purpose we need discuss only some of the instructions given and refused.
Instruction No. 1, given by the court, in which plaintiff's right to recover is defined, is not subject to criticism by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fullenwider v. Brawner
...man was 35 years of age. On a previous trial the verdict was $3,400, but it was reversed for error in the introduction of evidence. 178 Ky. 184, 198 S.W. 713. In L. & N. R. Co. v. Williams, 186 Ky. 680, 217 S.W. 915, a verdict of $6,000 was sustained. In the case of D. H. Ewing's Sons v. Ar......
-
Brown McClain Transfer Co. v. Major's Adm'r
... ... children have a right to light, air and exercise, and the ... children of the poor can ... Duganics (Ky.) 113 S.W. 128; Danville Light, Power & ... Traction Company v. Baldwin, 178 Ky ... ...