Evans v. Adams Exp. Co.

Citation23 N.E. 1039, 122 Ind. 362
Case DateFebruary 27, 1890
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

122 Ind. 362
23 N.E. 1039

Evans
v.
Adams Exp. Co.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Feb. 27, 1890.


Appeal from circuit court, Gibson county; O. M. Welborn, Judge.

Action by Jonathan Evans against the Adams Express Company. Judgment was rendered for defendant, and plaintiff appealed.


A. P. Twinham, W. D. Robinson, and Lucius C. Embree, for appellant. Clarence A. Buskirk and John W. Brady, for appellee.

Mitchell, C. J.

Evans sued the Adams Express Company to recover damages for injuries alleged to have resulted to him from being run over in a public street in the city of Princeton by a horse and wagon alleged to have been negligently driven by the agent or employe of the company. There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant below. There is no controversy as to the facts. The evidence shows that about 7 o'clock on the evening of November 12, 1888, the appellant was standing on a cross-walk in a public street of the city of Princeton, conversing with two acquaintances. After being thus engaged for a few moments, they stepped aside from the cross-walk, and continued in the street talking. The appellant stood in the street about eight feet from the curb, near the margin of the traveled track, over which horses and vehicles were accustomed to pass; there being, however, about 30 feet of space in the street, over which a horse and wagon might have been driven without coming in contact with the appellant. It was after night-fall, but it was not so dark but that persons standing or a horse and vehicle approaching on the street could be seen. The Adams Express Company employed an agent at Princeton, who transacted its business for a stipulated price per month, and furnished his own horse and wagon, and employed a driver at his own expense, to carry express packages and matter to and from the trains. The United States mail was also carried to and from the trains in the same wagon,

[23 N.E. 1040]

and, when not occupied in carrying express or mail matter, the horse and wagon were employed by the owner, as opportunity offered, for hire. On the evening in question the boy having the horse and wagon in charge received a sack of mail at the post-office, and while on his way with it received at another place a parcel which was to go by express. With the mail-sack and express package in his wagon, the boy was pursuing his way to the depot, another boy occupying the driver's seat with him; the horse being permitted to walk at a moderate pace, without being guided. When within about 12 feet of the place where the appellant and his friends were standing, the boy observed them; and seeing two of them move out of the way, and being playfully engaged with the other boy, he did not afterwards see the appellant until the wagon wheel struck and threw him to the ground, inflicting painful injuries upon his person. The jury having found, in answer to a special interrogatory, that the appellant was not in the exercise of ordinary care at the time he was injured, it is proper to remark that no question is made on this appeal relating to the liability of the express company for the negligence of the driver employed by the owner of the horse and wagon. Railroad Co. v. Farver, 111 Ind. 195, 12 N. E. Rep. 296.

At the proper time the plaintiff asked the court to give the jury the following, among...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 practice notes
  • Smith v. Gould, No. 6942.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 9 Junio 1931
    ...136 A. 116, 118; Dyerson v. R. R. Co., supra; Leftridge v. Seattle, supra; Bourrett v. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 121 N. W. 380; Evans v. Express Co., 122 Ind. 362, 23 N. E. 1039, 7 L. R. A. 678; anno. 55 L. R. A. 465; note 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 958, 959; note, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 896; note, L. R. A. 191......
  • Acton v. Fargo & Moorhead St. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 30 Diciembre 1910
    ...of the danger that was imminent, a recovery is justified notwithstanding plaintiff's prior negligence. Evans v. Adams Express Co., 122 Ind. 362, 23 N. E. 1039, 7 L. R. A. 678;Evansville, etc., Ry. Co. v. Hiatt, 17 Ind. 102;Krenzer v. Pittsburg, etc., Ry. Co., 151 Ind. 587, 43 N. E. 649, 68 ......
  • Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. Tenner
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 25 Junio 1903
    ...that it is always prudent to stand still in a city street; many times it would be the height of negligence to do so. Evans v. Express Co., 122 Ind. 362, 23 N. E. 1039, 7 L. R. A. 678. It cannot be said that appellee ought to have remained standing where she alighted; the wisdom of so doing ......
  • Krenzer v. Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 16 Diciembre 1898
    ...court has established a different rule in a later case than any of those to which I have referred, and that case is Evans v. Express Co., 122 Ind. 362, 23 N. E. 1039. It is true that was a suit by Evans against the express company for the negligence of the driver of its express wagon in dri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
36 cases
  • Smith v. Gould, No. 6942.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • 9 Junio 1931
    ...136 A. 116, 118; Dyerson v. R. R. Co., supra; Leftridge v. Seattle, supra; Bourrett v. Ry. Co. (Iowa) 121 N. W. 380; Evans v. Express Co., 122 Ind. 362, 23 N. E. 1039, 7 L. R. A. 678; anno. 55 L. R. A. 465; note 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 958, 959; note, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 896; note, L. R. A. 191......
  • Acton v. Fargo & Moorhead St. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 30 Diciembre 1910
    ...of the danger that was imminent, a recovery is justified notwithstanding plaintiff's prior negligence. Evans v. Adams Express Co., 122 Ind. 362, 23 N. E. 1039, 7 L. R. A. 678;Evansville, etc., Ry. Co. v. Hiatt, 17 Ind. 102;Krenzer v. Pittsburg, etc., Ry. Co., 151 Ind. 587, 43 N. E. 649, 68 ......
  • Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. Tenner
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 25 Junio 1903
    ...that it is always prudent to stand still in a city street; many times it would be the height of negligence to do so. Evans v. Express Co., 122 Ind. 362, 23 N. E. 1039, 7 L. R. A. 678. It cannot be said that appellee ought to have remained standing where she alighted; the wisdom of so doing ......
  • Krenzer v. Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 16 Diciembre 1898
    ...court has established a different rule in a later case than any of those to which I have referred, and that case is Evans v. Express Co., 122 Ind. 362, 23 N. E. 1039. It is true that was a suit by Evans against the express company for the negligence of the driver of its express wagon in dri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT