Indiana Union Traction Company v. Pring
Decision Date | 26 October 1911 |
Docket Number | 7,149 |
Parties | INDIANA UNION TRACTION COMPANY v. PRING |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Rehearing denied March 13, 1912. Transfer denied June 4 1912.
From Randolph Circuit Court; James S. Engle, Judge.
Action by James A. Pring against the Indiana Union Traction Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
J. A Van Osdol, Kittinger & Diven, for appellant.
Edward R. Templer, Van L. Ogle, George H. Koons and George H. Koons, Jr., for appellee.
Action by appellee for damages on account of personal injury received in a collision while in the employ of appellant as checkman, engaged in handling and checking freight and express matter on one of appellant's electric cars.
The case is before this court on a second appeal, a former judgment in favor of appellee obtained in the Delaware Circuit Court having been reversed because of the insufficiency of the original complaint. Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Pring (1908), 41 Ind.App. 247, 83 N.E. 733.
After reversal, an amended complaint in three paragraphs was filed in the Delaware Circuit Court. A motion to strike out parts of this complaint was first filed, which was overruled and exception given to appellant, after which demurrers were filed to each paragraph, which were also overruled and exception given to each ruling.
The case was then put at issue by answer in general denial, and a special answer of the statute of limitations, and reply in general denial.
There was a trial by jury, verdict for appellee in the sum of $ 5,750, judgment on the verdict, motion for new trial overruled and exception by appellant, and appeal to this court.
The errors assigned and relied on are the rulings of the court on the motion to strike out parts of the amended complaint, the demurrers to each paragraph of the complaint, and the motion for a new trial.
The third paragraph of the amended complaint, covering forty pages of appellee's brief, presents all the questions raised by this appeal so far as the pleadings are concerned. The length of this paragraph forbids a copy in this opinion, and we will attempt to set out only enough of the same to render intelligible our disposition of said questions, and our reasons therefor.
This paragraph alleges the corporate existence of the appellant; the nature and character of its business as a carrier; the employment of appellee; the nature and character of his duties, and the service required of him under his employment; the occurrence of the collision of the two cars; appellee's resulting injuries, and their nature and extent; and alleges, in addition, the following further facts, which we quote from appellant's summary:
It is further alleged "that the negligence of the defendant as aforesaid and the negligence of the said Joseph Mahoney as general trainmaster of the defendant acting for the defendant as such, as the agent and representative of the defendant as aforesaid, and the negligence of said Mahoney while yet in his office in failing to notify said train dispatcher of his intention to send out, take out or order out said wild car as aforesaid, under all the conditions aforesaid, was the sole and approximate cause of said collision and of plaintiff's said injuries received therein as aforesaid; * * * that said accident was caused and plaintiff's injuries received as aforesaid proximately and directly by the negligence of the defendant as aforesaid and by the negligence of the said Joseph Mahoney as general trainmaster of the defendant as aforesaid and representative and agent of the defendant as aforesaid and without any fault or negligence upon the part of the plaintiff."
The first error assigned presents the ruling of the court on the motion to strike out that part of the amended complaint which alleged the defective condition of the telephones and telephone lines. Appellant contends that these averments were absent from the original complaint, and now appear for the first time in the amended complaint, which was filed more than two years after the happening of the injury, and that under the law an amendment will not be permitted when it will operate to defeat the statute of limitations.
Inasmuch as the same question is raised by appellant in its discussion of the evidence under the issue tendered by its answer of the statute of limitations, to avoid repetition we will at this point discuss the entire question presented by these allegations in this amended paragraph. While there may be some apparent conflict in the application of the law to particular cases, we think the general proposition contended for by appellant, that an amendment will not be permitted when it will operate to defeat the statute of limitations, is well settled by the decisions of this State. School Town of Monticello v. Grant (1885), 104 Ind. 168, 1 N.E. 302; Fleenor v. Taggart (1888), 116 Ind. 189, 18 N.E. 606; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Bills (1889), 118 Ind. 221, 20 N.E. 775; Blake v. Minkner (1894), 136 Ind. 418, 36 N.E. 246; Fleming v. City of Anderson (1907), 39 Ind.App. 343, 344, 76 N.E. 266.
But do the allegations of this amended pleading, relative to appellant's telephones and telephone lines, amount to an independent charge of negligence in this regard as a proximate cause of appellee's injury?
A careful reading of these allegations discloses that their purpose and intent in the pleading is not to charge...
To continue reading
Request your trial