Koran v. Cudahy Packing Co., No. 19077.

CourtSupreme Court of Nebraska
Writing for the CourtLETTON
Citation100 Neb. 693,161 N.W. 245
Docket NumberNo. 19077.
Decision Date29 December 1916
PartiesKORAN v. CUDAHY PACKING CO.

100 Neb. 693
161 N.W. 245

KORAN
v.
CUDAHY PACKING CO.

No. 19077.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Dec. 29, 1916.



Syllabus by the Court.

A custom prevails in Douglas county in civil cases that 18 jurors who have passed their voir dire examination be called into the jury box and counsel for each side then strike off 3 names peremptorily. Counsel for defendant, after striking the names of 3 jurors in this manner, was denied the right to challenge 3 other jurors peremptorily from the 12 remaining in the box. Held that, having acquiesced and participated in peremptorily challenging 3 men in accordance with this custom the defendant waived its right to exercise other or further peremptory challenges.

Where a foreman ordered a workman to hurry, and furnished him a defective box to stand upon, in order to facilitate the work he was doing, the defect in which was not obvious to the workman, he was entitled to rely upon the foreman's selection of the box as a safe place upon which to stand.

A judgment will not be reversed merely on account of an extended cross-examination on an immaterial matter, unless it clearly appears that the substantial rights of defendant have been prejudiced.

Where there is direct testimony that the plaintiff, who has theretofore been in sound health, received an injury to the abdomen from striking the edge of a vat over which he was working, caused by the slipping of a defective box on which he stood, which resulted in a severe pain and a bruised condition of the lower abdominal region, and was soon followed by hernia, an operation for which was performed in a short time, it was not erroneous to permit certain

[161 N.W. 246]

medical witnesses to testify that hernia might have resulted from such a fall.


Appeal from District Court, Douglas County; Troup, Judge.

Action by Peter Koran against the Cudahy Packing Company, a corporation. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed, plaintiff having remitted part of the damages.

J. C. Kinsler, of Omaha, for appellant.

H. S. Daniel, Dunham & Aye and John A. Moore, all of Omaha, for appellee.


LETTON, J.

The plaintiff, a man about 25 years of age, was a workman in the employment of defendant at its packing house in South Omaha. It was his duty two or three times a week to remove sides of pork from certain wooden pickle vats about 4 feet deep and 4 feet across, in which the meat was pickled in a solution of salt and water. The water had been let out of the vat about 9 days before. Plaintiff used a hook with which to pull the meat out of the vat. He piled it on a truck and took it to the butchers in an adjoining room to be trimmed and prepared for market. He had been engaged in this employment for about 3 years under the same foreman. On the day of the accident he had emptied one truckload. He testifies that as he was starting the second load the foreman ordered him to hurry, saying that there were six butchers waiting for him, without meat, and asked him why he did not take a box to stand on. Plaintiff answered that he had nothing for that purpose. The foreman then kicked a box over to him against the vat and told him to stand on it. The box was a soap box about 2 feet long, 18 inches wide, and 9 inches deep. While plaintiff was standing on this box with his head down in the vat, reaching to the opposite side, and pulling a piece of meat with the hook the box tilted and slipped backwards from underneath him, allowing him to fall upon the edge of the vat, bruising his body, and causing severe pain in the lower part of his abdomen. After the accident he examined the box and found that a part of the side and of one end, about 2 inches deep, was split off from the bottom edge, so that as he reached over it tilted and slid along the floor, causing the fall. He felt a severe pain about 3 inches below the navel and 3 inches to the right of it. He felt weak and vomited, and afterwards the parts began to swell and became discolored. He consulted Dr. Riley, the doctor at the plant, about 4 o'clock the same afternoon, and he sent him to Dr. Koenig. The room in which he worked was about 100 feet square, filled with tanks in rows, with no windows. It was lighted by small electric lights, apparently carbon lamps about 25 or 30 feet apart. The box was brought into the room by the foreman. After he fell he explained to the foreman that the box tilted, who said that he saw that box yesterday; it was broken, and he forgot to throw it away. He went to Dr. Koenig's office, to Dr. Chaloupka, and afterwards to Dr. Lord, on Dr. Koenig's recommendation. Under Dr. Lord's direction he was taken to the hospital and operated upon for inguinal hernia. After being out of the hospital 8 or 9 days Dr. Lord...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Jessup v. Davis, No. 24265.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • November 19, 1926
    ...we cited Anderson v. Duckworth, 162 Mass. 251, 38 N. E. 510. The holding in the Egner Case was followed in Koran v. Cudahy Packing Co., 100 Neb. 693, 161 N. W. 245, wherein Judge Letton, in the course of the opinion, stated: “However, in Egner v. Curtis, Towle & Paine Co., 96 Neb. 18 [146 N......
  • Fielding v. Publix Cars, Inc., No. 29514.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • March 13, 1936
    ...if he is a stockholder or agent, or in any manner interested in such company.” This rule was followed in Koran v. Cudahy Packing Co., 100 Neb. 693, 161 N.W. 245, and Penhansky v. Drake Realty Construction Co., 109 Neb. 120, 190 N.W. 265. The right of counsel to interrogate jurors on their v......
  • City of Detroit v. Mich. R.R. Comm'n, No. 25.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • April 10, 1920
    ...will show that this contention is a distinction without a difference. In Telephone Co. v. Railroad Commission, 193 Mich. at page 529, 161 N. W. 245, Justice Person, speaking for the court, said: ‘The interest of the public in a proper regulation of public service corporations is continually......
  • Jessup v. Davis, 24265
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • November 19, 1926
    ...we cited Anderson v. Duckworth, 162 Mass. 251, 38 N.E. 510. The holding in the Egner case was followed in Koran v. Cudahy Packing Co., 100 Neb. 693, 161 N.W. 245, wherein Judge Letton, in the course of the opinion, stated: "However, in Egner v. Curtis, Towle & Paine Co., 96 Neb. 18, 146 N.W......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Jessup v. Davis, No. 24265.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • November 19, 1926
    ...we cited Anderson v. Duckworth, 162 Mass. 251, 38 N. E. 510. The holding in the Egner Case was followed in Koran v. Cudahy Packing Co., 100 Neb. 693, 161 N. W. 245, wherein Judge Letton, in the course of the opinion, stated: “However, in Egner v. Curtis, Towle & Paine Co., 96 Neb. 18 [146 N......
  • Fielding v. Publix Cars, Inc., No. 29514.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • March 13, 1936
    ...if he is a stockholder or agent, or in any manner interested in such company.” This rule was followed in Koran v. Cudahy Packing Co., 100 Neb. 693, 161 N.W. 245, and Penhansky v. Drake Realty Construction Co., 109 Neb. 120, 190 N.W. 265. The right of counsel to interrogate jurors on their v......
  • City of Detroit v. Mich. R.R. Comm'n, No. 25.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • April 10, 1920
    ...will show that this contention is a distinction without a difference. In Telephone Co. v. Railroad Commission, 193 Mich. at page 529, 161 N. W. 245, Justice Person, speaking for the court, said: ‘The interest of the public in a proper regulation of public service corporations is continually......
  • Jessup v. Davis, 24265
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • November 19, 1926
    ...we cited Anderson v. Duckworth, 162 Mass. 251, 38 N.E. 510. The holding in the Egner case was followed in Koran v. Cudahy Packing Co., 100 Neb. 693, 161 N.W. 245, wherein Judge Letton, in the course of the opinion, stated: "However, in Egner v. Curtis, Towle & Paine Co., 96 Neb. 18, 146 N.W......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT