Wabash W. Ry. Co. v. Morgan
Decision Date | 13 October 1892 |
Parties | WABASH W. RY. CO. v. MORGAN. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
On petition for rehearing. Overruled. For decision on appeal, see 31 N. E. Rep. 661.
In the brief of appellant's counsel on the petition for a rehearing it is argued with ability and earnestness that this court erred in not reversing the judgment because of the error of the trial court in instructing the jury as to the degree of care required of an employer in providing his employes with safe appliances. We fully agree with counsel that an employer is not bound to exercise extraordinary care to provide safe appliances. The care required of him is ordinary care, but the dangers of the service of which the employer has knowledge, or of which he is bound to take notice, are always to be considered in determining what constitutes ordinary care. There is no exact test to which cases can be indiscriminately subjected, nor is there any rigid standard by which all cases can be measured. What would be ordinary care in one class of cases might be far otherwise in other and different classes.
The fourteenth instruction, against which the attack is particularly directed, contains some statements which cannot, if considered apart from other instructions, be deemed accurate. The instruction reads thus: An analysis of this instruction shows that it contains general statements that are unquestionably correct, and these statements give tone and effect to the specific instruction when considered, as it must be, in connection with the series of instructions of which it forms a part. It is true, in a general sense, that a duty rests upon the employer “to see whether there are latent defects” in the appliances which he requires the employe to make use of in the line of his service. The employer is bound to make reasonable inspection of the appliances furnished the employes to discover latent defects, and a neglect to make such an inspection is a culpable breach of duty. Railroad Co. v. Herbert, 116 U. S. 642, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 590; Matchett v. Railway Co., (Ind. Sup.) 31 N. E. Rep. 792; Railroad Co. v. Pearcy, 128 Ind. 197, 27 N. E. Rep. 479; Railroad Co. v. McMullen, 117 Ind. 439, 20 N. E. Rep. 287. This duty to inspect implies, of course, that the employer will not subject the employe to concealed defects which an inspection conducted with ordinary care would have revealed. Obvious defects, open to ordinarily careful observation, are perils of the service; but latent defects, or defects not discoverable by the exercise of ordinary care, are not perils incident to the service, and hence are not assumed by the employe. Rogers v. Leyden, 127 Ind. 50, 26 N. E. Rep. 210, and cases cited; Railroad Co. v. Pearcy, supra; Matchett v. Railway Co., supra. It was therefore not error to direct the jury that the employer's duty was to furnish appliances free from latent defects, nor was it error to direct them that the duty to search for such defects did not rest uponthe employe. To affirm that such a duty...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
French v. State Farmers' Mut. Hail Ins. Co.
...... allow the amendment." The decisions of the California. court are also in harmony with the views expressed by Chief. Justice Morgan in the case of Barker v. More Bros. . 18 N.D. 82, 85, 118 N.W. 823, and are sustained by the great. weight of authority. Firebaugh v. Burbank, .... 119 Minn. 4, 137 N.W. 399; Hibernia Sav. & L. Soc. v. Jones, 89 Cal. 507, 26 P. 1089; Coubrough v. Adams, 70 Cal. 374, 11 P. 634; Wabash & W. R. Co. v. Morgan, 132 Ind. 430, 31 N.E. 661, 32 N.E. 85; [29 N.D. 437] Metropolitan L. Ins. Co. v. Smith, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 868, 53 L.R.A. ......
-
Vogg v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company
...2303; Fitzgerald v. Barker, 96 Mo. 665; Hurd v. Atkins, 29 P. 528; Patrick v. Skoman, 29 P. 21; Cleveland v. Miller, 53 N.W. 961; Railroad v. Morgan, 32 N.E. 85; Wallace Railroad, 16 S.E. 36. (2) Defendant's demurrers to the evidence should have been sustained on account of plaintiff's cont......
-
French v. State Farmers' Mut. Hail Ins. Co.
...... to allow the amendment.” The decisions of the California court are also in harmony with the views expressed by Chief Justice Morgan in the case of Barker v. More Bros., 18 N. D. 82, 85, 118 N. W. 823, and are sustained by the great weight of authority. Firebaugh v. Burbank, 121 ...Mil. Co., 119 Minn. 4, 137 N. W. 399;Hibernia Sav. & L. Soc. v. Jones, 89 Cal. 507, 26 Pac. 1089;Coubrough v. Adams, 70 Cal. 374, 11 Pac. 634;Wabash Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 132 Ind. 430, 31 N. E. 661, 32 N. E. 85;Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 59 S. W. 24, 22 Ky. Law Rep. 868, 53 L. R. A. ......
-
Diamond Block Coal Co. v. Cuthbertson
......Wabash, etc., R. R. Co. v. Morgan, 132 Ind. 430, 31 N. E. 661, 32 N. E. 85. When appellee, as the facts in the complaint disclose, was directed by appellant ......