Roesner v. Hermann

Citation8 F. 782
PartiesROESNER, Adm'r, v. HERMANN.
Decision Date01 January 1881
CourtD. Indiana

Chas Denby and J. S. Buchanan, for plaintiff.

Chas L. Wedding and Jas. L. Shackelford, for defendant.

This was an action brought by Peter Roesner, administrator of the estate of George Reed, against Henry Hermann, on account of the death of Reed while in the defendant's employ alleged to have resulted from the defendant's negligent use of defective and unsafe machinery. The defendant, in one of his answers, pleaded his release and discharge from all damages under and by virtue of the following agreement, viz.:

In consideration of the employment given me by Henry Hermann and as an inducement and as a consideration to said Hermann to actuate him to take and engage me into his employ, I herewith grant, bargain, and stipulate, for myself, my heirs executors, administrators, assigns, or personal representatives, whoever they may be, to and with said Henry Hermann, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, that I, being such employe of said Hermann, will not hold said Hermann, whatever befalls me during such employment, responsible or liable in any sum, or for any damages whatever; and I hereby release and discharge said Hermann from all liability herein, to me or my personal representatives, for loss, damage, suffering, sickness, ailment, death, or harm, of whatsoever nature or kind I or they, my personal representatives, may suffer by reason of any accident, mishap, death, or damage occurring to me while in the employ of said Hermann, whether it arise from negligence of said Hermann or by accident, or by reason of the negligence of the other of said Hermann's employes, or by the cause of mishap whatsoever it may; I hereby discharging him, said Hermann, as heretofore shown, from all kind and nature and manner of liability whatsoever, by reason of negligence on his part, omission of duty, or accident, during such employment, from date hereof forever.

And in addition I also promise and agree to work not less than 10 hours per day, while in the employ of said Hermann, under penalty of forfeiture and damages.

(Signed)

GEORGE (his 'X' mark) REED.

Signed in the presence of W. G. BOEPPLE.

The plaintiff demurred to this answer, and, after argument, the demurrer was sustained. No written opinion was filed.

GRESHAM, D.J., (orally.)

The substance of the complaint is that the defendant's machinery was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Stone v. Union Pac. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • 11 Abril 1907
    ......488;. Johnson v. Richmond Railroad Co. , 86 Va. 975, 11. S.E. 829; Kansas Railroad Co. v. Peavey , 29 Kan. 169, 44 Am. Rep. 630; Roesner v. Hermann [C. C.], 8. F. 782; Chicago Coal Co. v. Peterson , 39 Ill.App. 114.). . . If the. defendant could not have directly ......
  • Jones v. The St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 22 Diciembre 1894
    ...... v. Railroad, 88 Mo. 239; Bailey on Master's. Liability to Servants, 476; Thompson on Carriers, 401; 2. Wood's Railway Law, 1043; Roesner" v. Herman, 8. F. 782; Railroad v. Peavy, 29 Kan. 173; Railroad v. Spangle, 44 Oh. St. 476. . .          . OPINION. . .       \xC2"......
  • Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Peace
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 29 Marzo 1915
    ...Liability Act. Acts 1911, Act No. 88; 209 Mass. 607. It is void as against public policy. 48 Ark. 460; 21 Wall. 268; 10 Biss. 486; 8 F. 782; 44 Am. Rep. 630; 226 U.S. 509; 227 639; 91 Ark. 97; 111 Ark. 102. The provision as to notice is unreasonable. OPINION MCCULLOCH, C. J. The plaintiff, ......
  • Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company v. Mahoney
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 22 Abril 1897
    ...... policy, and the following authorities were cited in support. of that proposition. Roesner v. Hermann, 8. F. 782; Railway Co. v. Spangler, 44 Ohio. St. 471, 8 N.E. 467; Western, etc., R. R. Co. v. Bishop, 50 Ga. 465; Kansas Pacific R. W. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT