Indianapolis Foundry Co. v. Bradley
| Decision Date | 26 October 1909 |
| Docket Number | No. 6,800.,6,800. |
| Citation | 45 Ind.App. 530,89 N.E. 505 |
| Parties | INDIANAPOLIS FOUNDRY CO. v. BRADLEY. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Marion County; James M. Leathers, Judge.
Action by Andrew J. Bradley against the Indianapolis Foundry Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.Robert A. McBride, for appellant. Kealing & Hugg and Henry N. Spaan, for appellee.
Suit by appellee to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him because of the failure of the appellant to equip a certain emery wheel with an exhaust fan. Issues were formed on the two paragraphs of complaint by general denial. A trial by jury was had, and a verdict in favor of appellee for $900 returned. Appellant's motion for a new trial was overruled, and judgment rendered on the verdict. The only error assigned, and upon which the appellant relies for a reversal, is that the court erred in overruling its motion for a new trial.
In so far as this appeal is concerned, there is no very material difference in the two paragraphs of complaint. It is sufficient to say that both of them in substance allege that the appellant is a corporation engaged in manufacturing iron castings, at Indianapolis, Ind.; that in its said manufacture it operated emery wheels run at a high rate of speed, on which castings were ground; that, when castings were ground upon said wheels, dust composed of grindings of iron and emery was thrown and blown off from the same; that the appellee was employed by the appellant to grind castings on said emery wheels; that the appellant had carelessly, negligently, and wrongfully failed to equip, attach, or in any manner provide said emery wheels with exhaust fans with sufficient power for the purpose of carrying off said dust from said wheels; that appellee, while grinding castings on one of said emery wheels, was injured by dust thrown and blown from said wheel into his eyes; that the appellee's injuries were caused solely by the carelessness, negligence, and wrongfulness of the appellant in not providing said emery wheel with an exhaust fan, and would not have occurred otherwise.
The appellant asks for a reversal upon the following grounds only: (1) That the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence; (2) that the verdict is contrary to law; and (3) that the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury as asked.
The first two of these present substantially the same question, viz.: A material averment of each paragraph of the complaint was that the defendant's eye was injured by dust getting into it while he was engaged in operating an emery wheel for the appellant, it being alleged that the appellant was negligent in failing to obey a statutory requirement and equip the emery wheel with an exhaust fan for the removal of the dust. It is the contention of appellant that there was no evidence whatever to show that the defendant's eye was injured by dust, or that any dust ever at any time got into or affected his eye, and, upon this absence of proof, appellant insists that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence and was contrary to law.
The action is predicated upon so much of section 8029, Burns' Ann. 1908, which reads as follows: “Exhaust fans of sufficient power shall be provided for the purpose of carrying off dust from emery wheels and grindstones and dust-creating machinery from establishments where used.” To warrant a recovery, the burden was upon plaintiff to show that he was an employé of appellant; that as such employé he was operating an emery wheel for his employer; that said emery wheel was not equipped with an exhaust fan; that it was practicable to provide said emery wheel with an exhaust fan; that he was injured by dust thrown and blown from said wheel; that his injury was caused in the manner alleged. The only one of these material facts which we think can be questioned upon the evidence is, whether the object which struck and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen Gravel Co. v. Curtis
...Co., 136, A. 472; Donnelly v. Minneapolis Mfg. Co., 201 N.W. 305; Indianapolis Foundry Co. v. Lackey, 97 N.E. 349; Indianapolis Foundry Co. v. Bradley, 89 N.E. 505; Mesite v. International Silver Co., 134 A. Pigeon v. W. P. Fuller & Co., 105 P. 976; Smith v. International High Speed Steel C......
-
Indianapolis Foundry Co. v. Lackey
...did not include particles of iron and emery. Muncie Pulp Co. v. Hacker, 37 Ind. App. 194-205, 76 N. E. 770;Indianapolis Foundry Co. v. Bradley, 45 Ind. App. 530-534, 89 N. E. 505. In the latter case, the court, in construing the provision of the act in question here (45 Ind. App. at page 53......
-
Indianapolis Foundry Company v. Lackey
... ... This court has held that it ... would have been improper for a court to instruct a jury that ... the term "dust" did not include particles of iron ... and emery. Muncie Pulp Co. v. Hacker ... (1906), 37 Ind.App. 194, 205, 76 N.E. 770; Indianapolis ... Foundry Co. v. Bradley (1910), 45 Ind.App. 530, ... 534, 89 N.E. 505. In the latter case, the court, in ... construing the provision of the act in question here, said at ... page 533: " One purpose of the statute is to reduce the ... hazards incident to the operation of emery-wheels. It ... requires [51 Ind.App ... ...