George Fowler, Sons & Co. v. Brooks
| Citation | 65 Kan. 861,70 P. 600 |
| Parties | GEORGE FOWLER, SONS & CO., Limited, v. BROOKS. |
| Decision Date | 08 November 1902 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Kansas |
In banc. Error from court of common pleas, Wyandotte county; Wm G. Holt, Judge.
Action by A. M. Brooks against George Fowler, Sons & Co Limited. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
Harkless, O’Grady & Crysler and Moore & Berger, for plaintiff in error.
Angevine & Cubbison and Geo. W. Littick, for defendant in error.
Action by A. M. Brooks to recover from George Fowler Sons & Co Limited, for personal injuries sustained while he was in the service of that company. He was a carpenter, who was directed to take down a vat, which was to be transferred to and set up in another part of the packing plant. His part was to cut the hoops of the vat, take down and number the staves so they could be easily reset. Three truckmen wheeled the staves and parts taken down to the new location over inclines that are within the plant. These three had wheeled loads during the forenoon; and some time in the afternoon, when Brooks had finished taking down the vat, and the last of it had been loaded, he accompanied the truckmen. It was a heavy load, and in going down an incline the truckmen found difficulty in controlling and holding back the truck. Brooks undertook to help them by going alongside of the truck and placing his hand on the load. When the truck reached the bottom of the incline, where there was soft ground, some of the boards slipped off the truck, and struck and injured Brooks, who had in some way gotten in front of the truck. He says that he stumbled over a flat piece of boiler iron which was on the ground near the place of his injury, and that the leaving of the iron in the way was negligence and the proximate cause of the injury. The company denied any negligence or liability, and also set up the contributory negligence of Brooks. At the close of his testimony the company demurred to the evidence unsuccessfully, and then, without further testimony, asked for an instruction in its favor. This was refused, and the jury, after being charged, returned a verdict awarding Brooks $700 damages.
The principal argument made to uphold the verdict and judgment is that the averment of contributory negligence implied and admitted the negligence of the company; that proof of its negligence was not necessary under the pleadings, and that nothing was in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colonial Ref. Co. v. Lathrop
...properly pleaded, admit the negligence as charged in the petition." ¶13 The opinion further quotes from the syllabus in Fowler et al. v. Brooks, 65 Kan. 861, 70 P. 600, which says:"In an action for personal injuries, where defendant denies generally, and alleges contributory negligence, the......
-
Colonial Refining Co. v. Lathrop
...... opinion further quotes from the syllabus in Fowler et al. v. Brooks, 65 Kan. 861, 70 P. 600, which says:. . . "In an ......
-
Clemens v. St. Louis & S.F.R. Co.
...nor does the plea of contributory negligence, when properly pleaded, admit the negligence as charged in the petition." In Geo. Fowler, etc., v. Brooks, 70 P. 600, [1] the says: "In an action for personal injuries, where defendant denies generally, and alleges contributory negligence, the la......