Indianapolis And St. Louis Railway Company v. Watson

• Decision Date: 07 March 1888
• Docket Number: 12,232
• Parties: The Indianapolis and St. Louis Railway Company v. Watson
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

15 N.E. 824

114 Ind. 35

The Indianapolis and St. Louis Railway Company v. Watson

No. 12,232

Supreme Court of Indiana

March 7, 1888

Original Opinion of December 27, 1887, Reported at: 114 Ind 20.

OPINION

Elliott, J.

In a very forcible and able brief, counsel for the appellee contend that we departed from the established rule and weighed the evidence. In this counsel are in error.

We took the evidence as we found it in the record, and decided, on the uncontradicted evidence, that there could be no recovery. The decision of the case, in the main, depends upon the question whether there was a promise, relied upon by the appellee, exonerating him from the consequences of his negligence in remaining in the appellant's service after he acquired full knowledge of its dangers. We have held in many cases that where the evidence fails to make out a case the judgment will be reversed. City of Warsaw v Dunlap, 112 Ind. 576, 11 N.E. 623; Cincinnati, etc., R. W. Co. v. Long, 112 Ind. 166, 13 N.E. 659; Riley v. Boyer, 76 Ind. 152; Pittsburgh, etc., R. W. Co. v. Morton, 61 Ind. 539; Roe v. Cronkhite, 55 Ind. 183; Ray v. Dunn, 38 Ind. 230; Crossley v. O'Brien, 24 Ind. 325 (87 Am. Dec. 329).

Where, as here, there is only one witness upon a pivotal point, it is our duty to apply the law to his testimony, and if, under the law, the testimony is not sufficient to sustain a recovery, so adjudge. Where there is no conflict of testimony the court must necessarily decide the legal effect of the testimony in the record. In doing this there is no departure from the long settled rule to which counsel refer.

The question of negligence is never one exclusively of fact. The jury find the facts, but if from the facts one inference only can be drawn, and that is that there was negligence, it must be so adjudged as matter of law; or, conversely, if it can be clearly affirmed as matter of law that there was no negligence, the court must so declare. In no case where negligence is the issue does the court entirely abdicate its power, for as to the law it must always rule, although, in some instances, the jury ultimately decide whether there is, or is not, negligence; but in every case the court must declare the law.

In ruling that there is no negligence the court does not rule upon a question of fact. Judge Holmes says: "Where a judge rules that there is no evidence of negligence, he does something more than is embraced in an ordinary ruling that there is no evidence of a fact. He rules that the acts or omissions proved or in question do not constitute a ground of legal liability, and in this way the law is gradually enriching itself from daily life, as it should." Holmes Common Law, 120.

This principle applies here, for we rule, not that there is no evidence of a fact, but that the facts proved do not create a legal liability. It has been very often decided by our own and by other courts that, where the facts are undisputed and unequivocal, the court must apply the law to them. Wabash, etc., R. W. Co v....