The Pennsylvania Company v. Congdon
Decision Date | 16 March 1893 |
Docket Number | 15,441 |
Citation | 33 N.E. 795,134 Ind. 226 |
Parties | The Pennsylvania Company v. Congdon, by Next Friend |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Allen Circuit Court.
The judgment is reversed, with instructions to grant a new trial.
J Brackenridge, J. Morris and A. Zollars, for appellant.
L. M Ninde and H. W. Ninde, for appellee.
This was an action for damages, brought by appellee against appellant, resulting in a verdict and judgment for appellee.
The complaint is assailed for the first time in this court. The pertinent averments are the following:
etc.
This complaint was not challenged in the circuit court, so that all minor defects, if any, must be held to be cured by the verdict.
The complaint will stand, unless there is some fault in it which affects in a very material degree the cause of action. Elliott's App. Proced., section 473, and cases cited in notes; Buskirk's Practice, and cases cited.
In McGregor v. Hubbs, 125 Ind. 487, 25 N.E. 591, it is said that "An assignment of error, that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, is not available for the reversal of the judgment, unless some fact essential to the existence of the cause has been wholly omitted from the complaint."
To enable an employee to recover damages from his employer, on account of injuries received by reason of defective places, machinery, or appliances, or incompetent co-employees, furnished by the employer for the use or assistance of the employe, it is necessary, in general, to allege and prove that the employer was in fault, and that the employee was without fault; or, at least, to allege and prove facts from which such fault and want of fault may be inferred.
In this case it is, therefore, essential that the averments of the complaint should show that any defects alleged to exist in the management of appellant's train, or in the character or quality of the appliances used in connection with the running of the train, from which the accident resulted, were due to the negligence or carelessness of appellant, and that appellee was himself free from such negligence or carelessness.
It may be necessary to say something of the real cause of the accident as disclosed in the complaint, and to distinguish the cause of the accident from the incident, or occasion, connected with it. Webster defines an occasion, as distinguished from a cause, to be "That which incidentally brings to pass an event, without being its efficient cause, or sufficient reason."
While the cause to be considered must be the proximate, and not the remote, cause, yet "the question is not what cause was nearest in time or place to the catastrophe."
In Ins. Co. v. Boon, 5 Otto 117, 24 L.Ed. 395, the proximate cause is defined to be And, the court continues:
So it has been frequently held that a railroad company is liable for injury to land by fire, caused by its negligence, although the fire did not come directly from the railroad, but from land belonging to another owner and lying intermediate between the railroad and the plaintiff's land; the negligence of the company in such case being considered not the remote but the proximate cause of the injury. Delaware, etc., R. R. Co. v. Salmon, 10 Vroom, 299, 23 Am. Rep. 214; Clemens v. Hannibal, etc., R. R. Co., 53 Mo. 366, 14 Am. Rep. 460; Atchison, etc., R. R. Co. v. Stanford, 12 Kan. 354, 15 Am. Rep. 362; Poeppers v. Missouri, etc., R. W. Co., 67 Mo. 715, 29 Am. Rep. 518.
In the carefully considered case of Billman v Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co., 76 Ind. 166, 40 Am. Rep. 230, where a team of horses was frightened by a railroad engine and ran against another horse and killed it, it was contended that the killing of the horse, being done by the runaway team, the negligence of the railroad company was too remote a cause; but the court held that the injury...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pennsylvania Co. v. Congdon
...134 Ind. 22633 N.E. 795PENNSYLVANIA CO.v.CONGDON.Supreme Court of Indiana.March 16, 1893 ... Appeal from circuit court, Allen county; E. O'Rourke, Judge.Action by Horton E. Congdon, by next friend, against the Pennsylvania Company, for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while in defendant's employ. From a judgment in plaintiff's favor, defendant appeals. Reversed.J. Brackenridge, for appellant. L. M. Ninde, for appellee.HOWARD, J.This was an action for damages, brought by appellee against appellant, resulting in a ... ...