Inland Steel Company v. Kiessling
| Decision Date | 26 March 1915 |
| Docket Number | 22,540 |
| Citation | 108 N.E. 232,183 Ind. 117 |
| Parties | Inland Steel Company v. Kiessling |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Porter Superior Court; Harry B. Tuthill, Judge.
Action by Alfred Kiessling against the Inland Steel Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Bomberger Curtis & Starr, Elmer E. Stevenson, J. A. Bloomington and Glenn D. Peters, for appellant.
Gavit & Hall, for appellee.
Appellee recovered a judgment for damages on account of personal injuries sustained by him while in the service of appellant. The injury to appellee was caused by the falling of a heavy casting which appellee and some of his coemployes were required in the course of their employment, occasionally to lift from its position and remove to a place about two feet distant. This casting was lifted when occasion required, by means of a rope and pulley, the rope being attached to an eyebolt which was screwed into an oilcup hole in the casting. On the occasion of appellee's injury, the casting had been lifted by this means and while it was suspended and while appellee was trying to push it over to the place where it was to rest, the eyebolt came out of the oilcup hole and the casting fell and crushed appellee's hand. As showing negligence the complaint alleges that the thread on the eyebolt and the thread in the oilcup hole into which it was screwed were too light and were not cut sufficiently deep to hold the weight of the casting; and that appellee before using said eyebolt complained to the superintendent and informed him that the thread on the eyebolt was not sufficiently heavy and strong to lift the weight of the casting and was assured by such superintendent that the thread was of sufficient strength and that it was safe to use for such purpose. The complaint further alleges that appellee relied on the assurance so given, and believed that it was safe to use the eyebolt as directed, and that he continued to use it until the time of his injury. The complaint was held sufficient on a former appeal. Inland Steel Co. v Kiessling (1910), 174 Ind. 630, 91 N.E. 1084.
The questions presented on this appeal relate to the actions of the court in overruling appellant's motion for judgment on the answers to interrogatories notwithstanding the general verdict and in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial.
On behalf of appellant it is claimed that the answers to the interrogatories show that appellee was a skilled machinist and that he relied on his own judgment in using the eyebolt after he had once safely used it in lifting the casting and that he did not use it in reliance of the assurance given him by the superintendent. The interrogatories do show that he had lifted the casting by the use of this eyebolt four or five times before the injury and that after the first time he continued to use it because he had lifted the casting safely the first time; but by interrogatory No. 35, the jury finds that appellee, in using the eyebolt at the time of his injury, did so because he relied on the assurance of the superintendent previously given. If the other interrogatories are to be given the meaning and effect for which appellant contends, they are contradicted and neutralized by interrogatory No. 35 and the general verdict is not affected. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Lightheiser (1907), 168 Ind. 438, 78 N.E. 1033; Indianapolis St. R. Co. v. Fearnaught (1906), 39 Ind.App. 75, 79 N.E. 217.
Appellant asserts that interrogatory No. 35 is double, and that it assumes a fact not found in answer to any other interrogatory and that, for this reason, the court should disregard the answer. The record does not show that appellant made any objection to the form of this interrogatory at the time it was submitted. Even though it were open to the objection urged against it, appellant, after permitting it to be submitted without objection, and after speculating on the chances of an answer favorable to it, is in no position to object to the answer being considered.
It is assigned as one of the causes for a new trial that the court erred in giving to the jury instruction No. 6. The part of the instruction to which objection is made reads as follows ...
To continue reading
Request your trial