New York Cent. R. Co. v. Knoll
Decision Date | 10 February 1965 |
Docket Number | No. 19939,No. 1,19939,1 |
Citation | 140 Ind.App. 264,204 N.E.2d 220 |
Parties | The NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant, v. Flora KNOLL, Appellee |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Jerdie D. Lewis, Terre Haute, Richard O. Olson, Chicago, Ill., Lewis & Lewis, Terre Haute, of counsel, for appellant.
Raymond J. Kearns, Terre Haute, Warren Buchanan, Rockville, Albert W. Ewbank, Indianapolis, of counsel, for appellee.
This is an action for personal injury arising out of an automobile accident.
[140 INDAPP 265] Judgment was for the plaintiff-appellee.
The assignment of errors, the court erred in overruling appellant's motion for new trial.
Appellant in ground 8 of its motion for new trial, assigned as error the giving of the plaintiff's Instruction No. 2. The instruction is as follows:
That portion of appellee's Instruction No. 2.
'[T]he reasonable value of all expenses necessarily incurred, if any, in being treated for such injuries and any expenses which it is shown by a fair preponderance of the evidence is reasonably necessary to be incurred in the future in attempting to effect a cure, if any.'
to which the appellant objects, is outside of the issues and evidence in the instant case.
There is no allegation in the appellee's complaint making an issue of the matters objected to by the appellant.
[140 INDAPP 266] It is fundamental that in civil actions the plaintiff must recover upon the case ha makes upon his complaint or not at all; that he cannot sue upon one set of facts and recover upon another.
It is furthermore fundamental that instructions of the court to the jury must follow the evidence, and be limited to an exposition of the legal effect upon the issues on trial of the relevant facts before the jury for determination. New York Central R. Co. v. Powell (1943), 221 Ind. 321, 330, 47 N.E.2d 615; Terre Haute Electric Co. v. Roberts (1910), 174 Ind. 351, 91 N.E. 941; Baker v. Powell (1953), 124 Ind.App. 77, 114 N.E.2d 894; Bodine v. Justice (1949), 119 Ind.App. 393, 85 N.E.2d 504 (transfer denied).
Instruction No. 2 was not applicable to the issues and the evidence and should not have been given the effect as set forth in determining the liability of the appellant.
The propriety of an instruction is to be determined, not by whether it embodies a correct statement...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gregory v. White Truck & Equipment Co., Inc.
...but whether it correctly states the law relevant to issuable facts given in the evidence of the trial.' N. Y. Central Railroad Co. v Knoll (1965), 140 Ind.App. 264, 204 N.E.2d 220; Automobile Underwriters, Inc. v. Smith (1956), 126 Ind.App. 332, 133 N.E.2d 72; Stillwell v. Adams (1963), 135......
-
Mansfield v. Shippers Dispatch, Inc.
...it was, was susceptible to more than one inference. Under these circumstances the error requires reversal. N. Y. C. R. Co. v. Knoll (1965), 140 Ind.App. 264, 266, 204 N.E.2d 220, 222. Reversed and remanded with instructions to grant appellant a new STATON and HOFFMAN, JJ., concur. 1 The smo......
-
Birdsong v. ITT Continental Baking Co.
...comply with the substantive law of Indiana. Summers v. Weyer (1967), 141 Ind.App. 176, 226 N.E.2d 904; New York Central Railroad Co. v. Knoll (1965), 140 Ind.App. 264, 204 N.E.2d 220. Where that rule has been violated, this Court must assume that the instruction given influenced the result ......
-
Johnson v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.
...the legal effect upon the issues on trial of the relevant facts before the jury for determination.' New York Central Railroad Company v. Knoll (1965), 140 Ind.App. 264, 204 N.E.2d 220, 222, and cases cited 'There is no explanation of the applicability of the quoted statute to the facts of t......