Jones v. City of Logansport
Decision Date | 30 August 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 3-781A181,3-781A181 |
Citation | 439 N.E.2d 666 |
Parties | Michael JONES, Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. CITY OF LOGANSPORT; Clyde E. Williams and Associates, A Corporation; Zimpro, Inc., A Division of Sterling Drug Company, A Corporation, Appellees (Defendants Below), v. The GRUNAU COMPANY, INC., (Third Party Defendant Below). |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
While a waste treatment plant was constructed for the City of Logansport, Indiana, Michael Jones was injured. He was holding a cable attached to a crane when the crane either came into contact with high voltage electrical lines or was close enough to the lines for the electricity to arc from the electrical lines to the crane. Jones alleged at trial that his injuries were the result of the negligence of several defendants. The jury returned a verdict against Jones. We addressed his appeal from that trial in our opinion Michael Jones v. City of Logansport (1982), Ind.App., 436 N.E.2d 1138.
In his appeal, Jones had argued that the trial court had erred when it rejected part of his tendered instruction number 8 because his instruction was a correct statement of the law. We stated that according to Ind.Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(7) Jones had waived this issue because he had not supported his statement with any authorities. On rehearing, Jones argues that he did not waive this issue as follows:
On page 1145 in footnote number 7 we noted our preference of deciding issues upon their merits. We further stated as follows:
Jones chose to argue several issues, not necessarily related, at the same time. He jumped from issue to issue and back again. Now he clearly argues that authorities that strongly support his other issues also can support his tendered instruction number 8. He admits his argument was mixed up, and he now attempts to decipher part of his argument. Unfortunately, this organization and elaboration of his argument comes too late. The date for the separation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mental Commitment of M.P., In re
...455 N.E.2d 362, 267. We will not search the record to reverse the trial judge. Stewart, 455 N.E.2d at 367; Jones v. City of Logansport (1982), Ind.App., 439 N.E.2d 666, 668.M.P. made an attempt to correct this omission by several citations to appropriate testimony in his reply brief. This r......
-
Scott v. Anderson Newspapers, Inc., 4-583A158
...v. Dalton (1982), Ind.App., 442 N.E.2d 366, 369; Jones v. City of Logansport (1982), Ind.App., 436 N.E.2d 1138, 1143-1144, reh. denied 439 N.E.2d 666; 6 Ind. Law Encyclopedia Contracts Sec. 116 (1958), as to Here, the parties' typewritten words "No Division" simply meant ANI's stock was not......
-
Rohrkaste v. City of Terre Haute
...IC 9-8-6-20. The trial court is not required to give an instruction which does not state the law accurately. See Jones v. City of Logansport (1982), Ind.App., 439 N.E.2d 666. Accordingly, the court did not err by modifying Rohrkaste's tendered instruction. E. Proximate cause Rohrkaste tende......
-
Lowden by Lowden v. Lowden
...or an incorrect application of the law to the facts. Jones v. City of Logansport, (1982), Ind.App., 436 N.E.2d 1138, 1143, reh. denied, 439 N.E.2d 666. Abby and her parents argue that the trial court misapplied the law, in that it failed to conclude that Dorothy owed to Abby a duty of reaso......