H. Rumely Co. v. Myer
| Decision Date | 01 November 1907 |
| Docket Number | No. 5,920.,5,920. |
| Citation | 40 Ind.App. 460,82 N.E. 97 |
| Parties | H. RUMELY CO. v. MYER. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Laporte County; John C. Richter, Judge.
Action for personal injuries by George Myer against the H. Rumely Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Judgment reversed, with instructions to sustain the demurrer to the complaint.
F. E. Osborn and W. A. McVey, for appellant. M. R. Sutherland and R. W. Smith, for appellee.
Action by appellee against appellant to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of appellant. The issues formed by an amended complaint in one paragraph, answered by a general denial, were submitted to a jury, resulting in a verdict in favor of appellee for $1,800. Appellant's motion for a new trial was overruled, and judgment rendered on the verdict.
For a reversal of this judgment, appellant insists (1) that the trial court erred in overruling its demurrer to the amended complaint. By the complaint, it is made to appear that appellant, a corporation, on January 31, 1905, and the day of the accident, was engaged in manufacturing and repairing threshing machines, traction engines, and other articles, in the city of Laporte Ind.; that appellee was in its employ as a common laborer; that as such employé it was a part of his duty to assist in rolling or transporting from one part of appellant's factory to another large traction wheels composed of iron, and about 7 feet in diameter and 18 inches wide at the rim or tire, and weighing about 1,000 pounds; that on said day, and pursuant to his said employment, and in obedience to instructions from appellant, he, with three others of his co-employés, undertook to remove one of said wheels to a room known as the “wrecking room” of appellant's factory, and, in order to do so, it was necessary to roll said wheel on the ground across an open or uncovered space, and the only way provided by appellant for that purpose; that appellant negligently permitted said way to become unsafe, unfit, and in a dangerous condition for such use, in this: That appellant negligently failed to provide a roof or covering over such way, and negligently permitted said way to be and become exposed to the weather, and at that time to become covered with snow and ice, which made it rough and uneven, thereby making the same unsafe and dangerous for appellee in the work then and there engaged; that said way at the time appellee and his said co-employés were so engaged had the appearance of being safe, even and smooth by reason of a light snow having fallen on and covering the rough and uneven snow and ice, which appellant had negligently permitted to accumulate thereon; “that said roughness, unevenness, and unfit and dangerous condition of said way where plaintiff and his said co-employés were so directed to roll said wheel was well known to the defendant, and defendant well knew that said wheels were liable to become unbalanced and tip over when rolled over a rough surface, but, notwithstanding its said knowledge thereof, it, the defendant, negligently permitted said way to so remain rough, uneven, unsafe and unfit for use of this plaintiff and his said co-employés in and about the rolling of said wheel, all of which said roughness, unevenness, unsafe and unfit condition of said way was unknown to this plaintiff and his said co-employés, and of which plaintiff or his said co-employés had no knowledge whatever”; that appellee, at the direction of appellant and in the performance of his duty, and with his said co-employés, attempted to roll said wheel over and upon said way, while engaged in said work, and while using all due care and caution said wheel came upon said rough and uneven snow and ice, and became immediately unbalanced, without any fault or negligence on the part of appellee or his co-employés so assisting, and by reason thereof fell upon and across the leg and ankle of appellee,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mellette v. Indianapolis Northern Traction Co.
... ... master's performance. He has also the right to rely upon ... the master's superior knowledge as to these matters ... M. Rumely Co. v. Myer (1907), 40 Ind.App ... 460, 82 N.E. 97 ... But in ... the case before us it was as well known to the appellant as ... ...
-
Mellette v. Indianapolis Northern Traction Co.
...upon the master's performance. He has also the right to rely upon the master's superior knowledge as to these matters. H. Rumely Co. v. Myer (Ind. App.) 82 N. E. 97. But in the case before us it was as well known to the appellant as to the appellees that rain and sleet followed by zero temp......