Waverly Company v. Beck
| Decision Date | 26 November 1913 |
| Docket Number | 22,508 |
| Parties | The Waverly Company v. Beck |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Superior Court of Marion County (83,052); Clarence E. Weir Judge.
Action by Frederick A. Beck, by his next friend, Katherine F. Beck against The Waverly Company. From a judgment for plaintiff the defendant appeals. (Transferred from the Appellate Court under § 1405 Burns 1908, Acts 1901 p. 590.)
Affirmed.
John B. Elam, James W. Fesler, and Harvey J. Elam, for appellant.
Pickens, Moores, Davidson & Pickens, for appellee.
This was an action brought in the Marion Superior Court by appellee against appellant for damages sustained while riding on and operating an elevator, by allowing his foot to be caught between the platform of the elevator and the casement of the floor. The original complaint was in three paragraphs. Before the trial the plaintiff dismissed the first and third paragraphs of complaint and the cause was tried on the second, which paragraph the defendant answered by general denial. The cause was tried by a jury which returned verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $ 1,200. Interrogatories were answered, and defendant moved the court for judgment on the interrogatories and answers thereto. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial and assigned reasons why a new trial should be granted, which in substance were: (1) the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence; (2) the verdict was contrary to law; (3) it was error of the court to refuse to give the jury seven instructions tendered by defendant, and in giving of its own motion fourteen instructions. The instructions tendered by the defendant related to contributory negligence. The question of law as to whether contributory negligence constitutes a defense in the case at bar is the main question for our decision. If, under the law, the appellee could be guilty of contributory negligence then the case must be reversed, otherwise affirmed.
The second paragraph of complaint alleges among other things that appellant wrongfully allowed appellee to operate said elevator in violation of § 4 of an act of the General Assembly (Acts 1899 p. 231, § 8024 Burns 1908) which prohibits the employment of certain persons, in certain places and reads as follows: "No person, company, corporation or association shall employ or permit any young person to have the care, custody, management of or to operate any elevator." Section 18 defines the term "young person" and reads as follows: "The words 'young person' means a person of the age of fourteen years and under the age of eighteen years." § 8038 Burns 1908, Acts 1899 p. 231. The appellant allowed, and permitted appellee to so operate said elevator until he was injured.
The only question for our consideration is Does contributory negligence constitute a defense in a personal injury case where a "young person" was permitted to do work in violation of the laws of Indiana, viz., the factory act?...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dusha v. Va. & Rainy Lake Co.
...Stearns Lbr. Co., 166 Wis. 605, 165 N. W. 337;Inland Steel Co. v. Yedinak, 172 Ind. 423, 87 N. E. 229, 139 Am. St. 389; Waverly Co. v. Beck, 180 Ind. 523, 103 N. E. 332;Marino v. Lehmaier, 173 N. Y. 530, 66 N. E. 572,61 L. R. A. 811;American Car, etc., Co. v. Armentraut, 214 Ill. 509, 73 N.......
-
Dusha v. The Virginia & Rainy Lake Company
...v. Stearns Lbr. Co. 166 Wis. 605, 165 N.W. 337; Inland Steel Co. v. Yedinak, 172 Ind. 423, 87 N.E. 229, 139 Am. St. 389; Waverly Co. v. Beck, 108 Ind. 523, 103 N.E. 332; Marino v. Lehmaier, 173 N.Y. 530, 66 N.E. 572, L.R.A. 811; American Car & Foundry Co. v. Armentraut, 214 Ill. 509, 73 N.E......
-
Gifford v. Haynes Auto. Co.
...stating the age, date and place of birth of said young person.” The appellant cites and relies upon the cases of Waverly Co. v. Beck, 180 Ind. 523, 103 N. E. 332, and Inland Steel Co. v. Yedinak, 172 Ind. 423, 87 N. E. 229, 39 Am. St. Rep. 389, as supporting the proposition thus announced. ......
-
Gifford v. Haynes Automobile Company
...N.E. 332, and Inland Steel Co. v. Yedinak (1909), 172 Ind. 423, 87 N.E. 229, 39 Am. St. 389, as supporting the proposition thus announced. The Beck case was decided the authority of the Yedinak case, the court saying: "The case last cited so completely covers the law of this case, that it i......