Indianapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Watson

• Decision Date: 07 March 1888
• Citation: 15 N.E. 824,114 Ind. 20
• Parties: Indianapolis & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Watson.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

114 Ind. 20

15 N.E. 824

Indianapolis & St. L. Ry. Co.

v.Watson.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 7, 1888.

Petition for rehearing. For former opinion, see 14 N. E. Rep. 721.

John T. Dye, for appellant. Shepard, Elam & Martindale, for appellee.

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 v. Dunlap, 112 Ind. ---, 14 N. E. Rep. 568; Railroad Co. v. Long, 112 Ind. ---, 13 N. E. Rep. 659; Riley v. Boyer, 76 Ind. 152;Railroad Co. v. Morton, 61 Ind. 539;Roce v. Cronkhite, 55 Ind. 183;Ray v. Dunn, 38 Ind. 230;Crossley v. O'Brien, 24 Ind. 325. Where, as here, there was 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 finds 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 this is the way the law is constantly enriching itself from daily life, as it should.” Com. 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. Railroad Co. v. Locke, 112 Ind. 404, 14 N. E. Rep. 391, and cases c...