Norfolk Beet-Sugar Co. v. Burnett

• Citation: 55 Neb. 360,75 N.W. 839
• Parties: NORFOLK BEET-SUGAR CO. v. BURNETT.
• Decision Date: 09 June 1898
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

55 Neb. 360

75 N.W. 839

NORFOLK BEET-SUGAR CO.

v.BURNETT.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

June 9, 1898.

Syllabus by the Court.

The evidence in this case examined, and found sufficient to sustain the verdict returned and judgment rendered.

Error to district court, Madison county; Robinson, Judge.

Action by John S. Burnett against the Norfolk Beet-Sugar Company. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.Powers & Hays, for plaintiff in error.

Beels & Schoregge, for defendant in error.

RYAN, C.

There was a verdict and judgment in the district court of Madison county against the Norfolk Beet-Sugar Company because of injuries alleged to have been sustained by one of its employés, entirely attributable, as he alleged in his petition, to the negligence of said company. The brief of plaintiff in error is entirely devoted to the argument that there was no evidence showing how the accident happened, and consequently there was no proof of negligence on the part of the company. The evidence is not as lucid as it might have been, but our understanding of it, briefly stated, is that the defendant in error was directed to remove some lime from under a mill; that when he began to make such removal the engine and machinery were not running, but while he was performing the work assigned him the engine was started; that the shaft which constituted a part of the machinery had been in bad condition for two days, and was in the process of repair, when the engine was set in motion, and by reason of the fall of the shaft itself, or of some pulleys used in connection with the shaft, either in repairing it or otherwise, the defendant in error was struck, and instantly rendered unconscious. No one saw what struck him, but immediately afterwards some of his coemployés came into the room where he was lying bleeding and unconscious, and found the fallen shaft and pulleys in such proximity to defendant in error that probably the shaft or the pulleys had fallen upon him. As to the history or cause of the accident the company offered no evidence whatever. There was nothing to indicate that the defendant in error was guilty of negligence in any respect or degree whatever, and from a careful examination of all the evidence we have reached the conclusion that the verdict was thereby sustained. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.