Marion and Bluffton Traction Company v. Landis
| Decision Date | 23 December 1921 |
| Docket Number | 10,969 |
| Citation | 133 N.E. 404,77 Ind.App. 239 |
| Parties | MARION AND BLUFFTON TRACTION COMPANY v. LANDIS |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From Adams Circuit Court; David E. Smith, Special Judge.
Action by Arcana Landis against the Marion and Bluffton Traction Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Abram Simmons, Charles G. Dailey, Virgil M. Simmons and John J Kelly, for appellant.
Milo N Feightner, Fred H. Bowers and Lee M. Bowers, for appellee.
The cause of action in this case arose out of the same collision as the cases of Marion & Bluffton Traction Co. v Reese (1919), 71 Ind.App. 223, 124 N.E. 500; and Marion, etc., Traction Co. v. Umphress (1920), 73 Ind.App. 703, 127 N.E. 568.
The complaint in this case was in three paragraphs. It is alleged in the first paragraph of the complaint that the plaintiff and her husband, who was then and there driving the automobile in which they were riding, occupied the front seat in said car; that plaintiff was merely a passive guest, and that they were struck at a highway crossing by a car of defendant, and that she sustained the injuries for which she asked compensation.
The negligence charged was the failure to sound any whistle, or gong, or to give any notice of the approach of said car to said highway crossing, and in running said car at a high and dangerous rate of speed.
The negligence charged in the second paragraph of complaint was failure to observe the perilous position of plaintiff, and failure to stop said car in time to avoid injuring plaintiff.
The negligence charged in the third paragraph of complaint was, the failure to stop said car and avoid injuring plaintiff, after the motorman had discovered her perilous position.
To this complaint the appellant answered by a general denial, and the issues thus formed were submitted to a jury, resulting in a verdict for appellee. Interrogatories were submitted to the jury, and answers thereto returned with their verdict. The appellant moved for judgment in its favor upon the said answers, which motion was overruled, as was also its motion for a new trial. It now prosecutes this appeal and has assigned as error the overruling of each of said motions.
The appellant insists that the answers given by the jury to interrogatories submitted are in irreconcilable conflict with the general verdict because these answers show, (a) That the plaintiff was negligent up to the time of the accident; (b) that after the motorman discovered the perilous situation of plaintiff it was not possible to have then stopped his car and thereby avoided hitting the automobile in which plaintiff was...
To continue reading
Request your trial