The Baltimore And Ohio Southwestern Railroad Co. v. Harbin
| Decision Date | 22 April 1903 |
| Docket Number | 20,027 |
| Citation | 67 N.E. 109,160 Ind. 441 |
| Parties | The Baltimore and Ohio Southwestern Railroad Company v. Harbin |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Knox Circuit Court; O. H. Cobb, Judge.
Action by Allen Harbin against the Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Transferred from Appellate Court, under § 1337u Burns 1901.
Affirmed.
W. H De Wolf, E. H. De Wolf and Edward Barton, for appellant.
W. A Cullop and G. W. Shaw, for appellee.
Suit by appellee to recover damages for injuries received by the alleged negligent management of the train upon which he was a passenger. A demurrer to the complaint was overruled. Answer by general denial. Trial by jury. Verdict and judgment for appellee for $ 375.
The overruling of the demurrer to the complaint and of appellant's motion for a new trial are assigned as error.
The complaint is that the train was so negligently managed that while running at a speed of ten miles an hour, it was brought to a sudden stop, and thereby with great force and violence threw the plaintiff from his seat against the wall and floor of the car, inflicting upon him serious and permanent injuries.
Appellant's objection to the complaint is that it charges no act of negligence, since no rate of speed, however high, can be said to be negligence, per se, as to passengers in the train. It will be observed that it is not the speed of the train, but the sudden stopping of the train that is the act complained of. We can not say, as a matter of law, that a train running at the rate of ten miles an hour may not be so abruptly and unreasonably stopped as to constitute negligence, and under a general charge that such act was negligence, the complaint, by many decisions of this court, must be held sufficient on demurrer.
It is claimed that the court erred in refusing to give to the jury instructions, requested by appellant numbered one, two, three, four, five, and six, and in the giving of said instructions numbered two, four, and five as modified. Number one was a direction to the jury to return a verdict for the defendant, and was properly denied. Numbers two, three, four, five, and six, as asked and refused, and numbers two, four, and five, as modified and given, were each based upon the assumption that the plaintiff had left his seat in the car, and at the time of his injury was standing in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neuwelt v. Roush
... ... Roush, ... 1900, 154 Ind. 562, 55 N.E. 1017; Baltimore & O. S.W. R ... Co. v. Harbin, 1903, 160 Ind. 441, 67 ... ...
-
Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Collins
...was not harmed by the refusal to give this instruction. City of Muncie v. Hey, 164 Ind. 570, 74 N. E. 250;Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Harbin, 160 Ind. 441, 443, 67 N. E. 109;Barnett v. Feary, 101 Ind. 95, 100;Trentman v. Wiley, 85 Ind. 33, 37, 38. The fifteenth of appellant's instructions en......
-
Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company v. Collins
... ... Falvey (1886), 104 Ind. 409, 429, 3 N.E. 389; ... Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Stein (1894), 140 ... Ind. 61, 70, 39 ... Hey (1905), 164 Ind. 570, 74 N.E. 250; ... Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Harbin (1903), ... 160 Ind. 441, 443, 67 ... service of a railroad corporation and in the exercise of due ... care and ... ...
-
Grand Trunk Western Ry. Co. v. Poole
...Bridge Co. v. Doty, 168 Ind. 259, 271, 79 N. E. 485;City of Muncie v. Hey, 164 Ind. 570, 577, 74 N. E. 250;Baltimore, etc., Ry. Co. v. Harbin, 160 Ind. 441, 443, 67 N. E. 109;Roush v. Roush, 154 Ind. 562, 573, 55 N. E. 1017. The twenty-fifth instruction tendered and refused declared as a ma......