Motor Exp., Inc. of Ind. v. Chase
Decision Date | 10 October 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 1,No. 19524,19524,1 |
Citation | 135 Ind.App. 544,193 N.E.2d 78 |
Parties | MOTOR EXPRESS, INC. OF INDIANA, Appellant, v. Homer CHASE, Alleyenne Chase, John O. Reynolds, and Melbourne V. Cleveland, Appellees |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
G. Edward McHie, Hammond, Robert S. Baker, Michigan City, Peters, Highland & McHie, Hammond, of counsel, for appellant.
Geoffrey Segar, Indianapolis, for appellee, Homer Chase.
Edward J. Bradley, Chicago, Ill., for appellees, Homer Chase and Alleyenne Chase.
Oscar Strom, Charles Whitted, Gary, Frederick H. Link, LaPorte, for appellee, John O. Reynolds; Strom & Whitted, Gary, of counsel.
This is an appeal from a judgment on a verdict of the LaPorte Circuit Court in favor of appellees, Homer Chase, Alleyenne Chase, and John Reynolds, (Reynolds being a defendant below), and against appellant, Motor Express, Inc. of Indiana, and appellee, Melbourne V. Cleveland.
Appellees, Homer Chase and Alleyenne Chase, (plaintiffs below) filed separate actions for damages which were consolidated for trial. The suits were for personal injuries and property damage resulting from a collision between an automobile operated by appellee-Homer Chase in which appellee-Alleyenne Chase was riding, and a tractor-trailer truck driven by appellee-Melbourne V. Cleveland.
The complaint alleged that appellee-Melbourne V. Cleveland was the driver of a tractor-trailer truck, and that he was negligent in that he lacked control of the truck and drove it across the center line of the highway into the path of plaintiff-appellee's automobile.
This case comes to us on appeal by an assignment of errors charging the trial court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial.
The issue to be decided by the jury was whether or not the truck driver, Melbourne V. Cleveland-appellee, was, at the time of the collision, an employee of John O. Reynolds-appellee, or of the appellant, Motor Express, Inc. of Indiana, or both.
Appellant, Motor Express, Inc. of Indiana, hereinafter referred to as 'Motor Express,' contends that confusion arose which prevented the jury from making a fair consideration of the cause; (1) that the confusion arose from the fact that Reynolds Cartage Company, Inc. was not a party to the litigation and had a hauling contract with appellant; (2) that John O. Reynolds, manager of appellant's office, was the owner of the tractor-trailer truck, but not a party to the hauling contract between Motor Express and Reynolds Cartage Company, Inc.; and (3) that the court admitted into evidence the hauling contract between Motor Express and Reynolds Cartage Company, Inc., identified as, 'Defendant Motor Express Inc. of Indiana, Exhibit 1.'
Plaintiffs below attempted to obtain information concerning the relationship of Motor Express, Reynolds Cartage Company, Inc., John O. Reynolds, individually, and John O. Reynolds, as manager of the office of Motor Express, and the driver, Melbourne V. Cleveland. They submitted interrogatories to appellant. Appellant was unable to answer the name of the owner of the tractor-trailer truck involved in the accident. Appellant was unable to state if the tractor-trailer truck was being operated under a Certificate of Convenience issued by the Public Service Commission of Indiana, and appellant was unable to answer who the driver, Melbourne V. Cleveland, was employed by at the time of the accident. Appellant did not know to whom the merchandise was being hauled at the time of the accident, or whether the accident occurred when the tractor-trailer truck was going to or coming from the point of delivery, and did not know if the tractor-trailer truck had painted on it on either the sides or rear the words, 'Motor Express,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dale v. Trent, 169
...388, and cases cited. Silver Fleet Motor Exp. Co. v. N.Y.C.R.R. (1963) 134 Ind.App. 696, 188 N.E.2d 829; Motor Express Inc. of Indiana v. Chase (1963) 135 Ind.App. 544, 193 N.E.2d 78; New York Central Railroad Company v. Cavinder (1965) Ind.App., 211 N.E.2d Nonetheless, the trial court gave......
-
Preston v. Hammond, 3--772A33
...consequences of his own neglect or misconduct. Ray v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 395, 248 N.E.2d 337; Motor Express, Inc. of Indiana v. Chase (1963), 135 Ind.App. 544, 193 N.E.2d 78; Barton v. State (1960) 240 Ind. 257, 163 N.E.2d 600; Armstrong v. Presslor (1947), 225 Ind. 291, 73 N.E.2d 751; ......
-
Weber v. Electrostatic Engineering, Inc.
...natural consequences of his own neglect or misconduct. Ray v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 395, 248 N.E.2d 337; Motor Express, Inc. of Indiana v. Chase (1963) 135 Ind.App. 544, 193 N.E.2d 78; Barton v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 257, 163 N.E.2d 600; Armstrong v. Presslor (1947), 225 Ind. 291, 73 N.E.......
-
Jolly v. Modisett, 1271S348
...consequences of his own neglect or misconduct. Ray v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 395, 248 N.E.2d 337; Motor Express, Inc. of Indiana v. Chase (1963), 135 Ind.App. 544, 193 N.E.2d 78; Barton v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 257, 163 N.E.2d 600; Armstrong v. Presslor (1947), 225 Ind. 291, 73 N.E.2d 751;......