The W. C. De Pauw Co. v. Stubblefield

• Decision Date: 15 September 1892
• Docket Number: 15,579
• Citation: The W. C. De Pauw Co. v. Stubblefield, 31 N.E. 796, 132 Ind. 182 (Ind. 1892)
• Parties: The W. C. De Pauw Company v. Stubblefield
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

31 N.E. 796

132 Ind. 182

The W. C. De Pauw Company v. Stubblefield

No. 15,579

Supreme Court of Indiana

September 15, 1892

From the Floyd Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed.

A Dowling, for appellant.

J. V Kelso, C. D. Kelso and J. K. Marsh, for appellee.

OPINION

Coffey, J.

This was an action by the appellee against the appellant, instituted in the Floyd Circuit Court, for the recovery of damages on account of a personal injury sustained by the appellee while acting as the employee of the appellant.

The appellant assigns as error in this court:

First. That the circuit court erred in overruling its demurrer to the appellee's complaint.

Second. That the court erred in overruling its motion for a new trial.

The complaint alleges, substantially, that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of plate glass in the city of New Albany, where it owns and controls, for that purpose, extensive buildings, warehouses, shops, machinery and other appliances, and grounds and yards upon which the same are situated; that on the 16th day of March, 1888, there was within the said shops and grounds and maintained by the appellant a ditch, trench or pit fourteen inches wide, three feet long and five feet deep, covered with a layer of boards seven-eighths of an inch thick, and two iron plates one-half inch thick each, called runner plates, adjacent to the boards, and which were not fastened down or made secure in any way; that on said day the appellee was in the employment of the appellant in and about its shops and premises as a laborer and in the proper discharge of his duties, under his employment, while he and seven other employees of the appellant were engaged in removing and transporting from one part of appellant's premises, near which said ditch was located, to another part of said premises, by means of a two-wheeled truck, a large casting, weighing two thousand two hundred pounds, the property of the appellant, used in said business, and while in the act of passing and crossing the said ditch or pit with said truck and casting thereon, the wheel of said truck, without any fault, carelessness or negligence on the part of the appellee or his fellow-workmen, or either of them, ran against and upon said runner plates and boards which were thereby knocked out of place, spread apart and broken down by the weight of said truck and casting, and said truck and casting precipitated and thrown into the ditch without any negligence on the part of the appellee or his fellow-workmen; that in falling, the casting, without any negligence on the part of the appellee, fell upon, mangled and crushed his foot and leg, rendering him a cripple for life; that the covering over the ditch or trench at the time appellee was so injured was, and for a long time prior thereto had been, insufficient, defective, unsafe and dangerous, in this, that it was not constructed of suitable material of sufficient strength to support the weight of the truck and casting, nor was it securely fastened down and held in place, but was constructed of unsuitable material and of insufficient strength, and so weak as to be incapable of supporting said truck and casting, all of which was well known to appellant long prior to the appellee's injury; that the appellee had no knowledge whatever of the dangerous condition of the ditch or pit, or of the character of the material of which the covering to the same was constructed, or that the covering was not securely fastened or held in place, nor could he have known of such danger by the exercise of ordinary care.

We think this complaint sufficient to withstand the demurrer levelled against it by the appellant.

It has long been...