Swansea Lease, Inc. v. Willison

• Decision Date: 23 July 1925
• Docket Number: Civil 2325
• Citation: 28 Ariz. 581,238 P. 389
• Parties: SWANSEA LEASE, INC., a Corporation, Appellant, v. J. A. WILLISON, Appellee
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

238 P. 389

28 Ariz. 581

SWANSEA LEASE, INC., a Corporation, Appellant, v. J. A. WILLISON, Appellee

Civil No. 2325

Supreme Court of Arizona

July 23, 1925

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Yuma. F. L. Ingraham, Judge. Affirmed.

Messrs Anderson, Gale & Nilsson and Messrs. Anderson, Gale & Miller for Appellant.

Mr Jesse C. Wanslee, for Appellee.

OPINION

LOCKWOOD, J.

J. A Willison, hereinafter called plaintiff, brought suit against Swansea Lease, Inc., a corporation, hereinafter called defendant, for damages on account of personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him while working for defendant. The suit was a common-law action of negligence, and the particular act of negligence complained of was set up as follows, to wit: That while plaintiff and three other employees of defendant were engaged in loading an electric motor from a platform on to a truck, by means of sliding it up a plank or skid, one end of which rested on the platform and the other on the truck, "one of the . . . employees used in his hands, for the purpose of pinching up the said motor, a piece of iron, and by the use of the said piece of iron began to slide or pinch the said motor up the said skid, . . . and while so using the said piece of iron said employee . . . carelessly and negligently placed the said piece of iron under the skid, instead of the motor, and slid both the motor and skid upwards, . . . causing the skid to tilt to one side, throwing the motor off of the said skid on to the body and foot of plaintiff . . . "

The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000), on which verdict judgment was rendered, and after a motion for new trial had been made and overruled, defendant appealed. There are some nine (9) assignments of error, which we will discuss as seems advisable. motion to make the complaint more definite and certain, in pointing out the particular acts of negligence above given shows clearly that it was the placing of the pinch bar under the skid, instead of the motor, and sliding both forward, thereby tilting the skid, so that the motor fell off, on which plaintiff bases his claim of recovery.

The second point is that the demurrers to the complaint should have been sustained, on the ground that no negligent act on the part of defendant was set up therein. This is also answered by the above quotation.

The third and fourth assignments are that the court should have directed a verdict in favor of defendant for several reasons to wit: Failure to prove the negligence alleged; failure to show defendant's responsibility therefor, if there was any negligence; sole negligence of the plaintiff; and assumption of risk by him. There was sufficient evidence in...