Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 31 March 1903
• Citation: 161 Ind. 701,66 N.E. 899
• Parties: PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO. v. WILSON.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

161 Ind. 701

66 N.E. 899

PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO.

v.WILSON.¹

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 31, 1903.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Porter County; John H. Gillett, Judge.

Action by John Wilson against the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appealed. Transferred from the Appellate Court under section 1337u, Burns' Rev. St. 1901 (Acts 1901, p. 590). Affirmed.

N. O. & G. E. Ross, for appellant. Herbert S. Barr, for appellee.

MONKS, J.

Appellee brought this action against appellant to recover damages for property destroyed by fire alleged to have escaped from a passing engine. A trial of said cause by a jury resulted in a general verdict in favor of appellee, and over appellant's motion for a judgment in its favor on answers to the interrogatories, notwithstanding the general verdict, and its motion for a new trial, judgment was rendered against appellant on said general verdict. The errors assigned call in question the action of the court in overruling appellant's demurrer to each paragraph of the complaint, its motion for a judgment on the answers to the interrogatories, notwithstanding the general verdict, and its motion for a new trial.

The complaint was in two paragraphs, and each charged appellant with negligence in the operation of its locomotive; and the second paragraph charged, in addition, that the locomotive was not provided with a spark arrester, and was out of repair. It was alleged in each paragraph that the injury to appellee's property described therein was caused “wholly by the negligence of appellant, and wholly without any fault or negligence on the part of appellee.” It is insisted by appellant that each of said paragraphs was bad, for the reason that the facts constituting appellant's negligence were not specifically averred, and that the general allegation of negligence was insufficient, because a mere conclusion of the pleader. It is the settled rule in this state that a failure to state in detail the facts constituting negligence does not render a pleading insufficient on demurrer, and that a general allegation of negligence is sufficient to withstand a demurrer for want of facts. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Cauley, 119 Ind. 142, 143, 21 N. E. 546;Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. McCartney, 121 Ind. 385, 386, 387, 23 N. E. 258, and cases cited; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Jones, 86 Ind. 496, 497, 498, 44 Am. Rep. 334;Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hanmann, 87 Ind. 422;Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Parks, 97 Ind. 307, 309.

The jury, by their answers to the interrogatories, found that the locomotive which set the fire “was provided and equipped with a spark arrester known as the extension front, of the most-approved style, and of the best known for the prevention of the escape of fire, and that the same was at the time of the fire in good condition and repair.” These answers are clearly against appellee's allegation in the second paragraph of complaint as to the defect in the construction of the locomotive, and the negligent failure of appellant to keep the same in repair. Each paragraph of the complaint charged, however,...