White Sewing-Mach. Co. v. Richter

• Decision Date: 18 September 1891
• Citation: 28 N.E. 446,2 Ind.App. 331
• Parties: White Sewing-Mach. Co. v. Richter.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

2 Ind.App. 331

28 N.E. 446

White Sewing-Mach. Co.

v.Richter.

Appellate Court of Indiana.

Sept. 18, 1891.

Appeal from superior court, Marion county; D. W. Howe, Judge.

Action by Susan Richter against the White Sewing-Machine Company to recover for personal injuries. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

James B. Harper, for appellant. Van Vorhees & Spencer, for appellee.

CRUMPACKER, J.

This action was brought by Susan Richter against the White Sewing-Machine Company and others, to recover damages inflicted upon her by the alleged carelessness of the defendant in attempting to remove a sewing-machine from her house. She had a verdict and judgment against the company in the court below, and this appeal raises the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. There was evidence fairly tending to establish the following facts: Mrs. Richter was the owner of a large iron-framed sewing-machine, manufactured for tailor's use, which she sold to one Mrs. Huey, who in turn sold it to the company in part payment for a new machine. The company agreed to take the old machine from Mrs. Richter's house, and on the day of the alleged injury one Barber, an employe of the company, went there for that purpose. The machine weighed about 200 pounds, and when Barber came Mrs. Richter told him that he could not remove it alone without taking off the top, embracing the machinery and gearing, and she removed the belt so the top could be taken off. Barber insisted that he could carry the machine without taking it apart, if he could get it upon his shoulders. She protested, and sought to convince him that he could not, and told him that it had required two men to carry it whenever it was moved before, and called his attention to the fact that the belt was off and the top loose, and, if he undertook to shoulder the machine without replacing the belt, the top was likely to fall off and break. He gave no heed to her protestations, however, and asked a man who was then moving Mrs. Richter's household goods to assist him in shouldering the machine, which he undertook to do, but, when the machine was being raised, it was not kept level, and the top fell off, striking against the wall, and rebounding to the floor, and broke in pieces. Mrs. Richter was standing near when the top fell, and a piece of iron struck her as it broke, and entirely destroyed one of her eyes. Barber knew that the belt was off when the undertook to lift the machine, and that there was nothing to hold the top in its place, and that it was liable to fall and break.

Appellant's counsel insist that the fact that the top of the machine first struck the wall, and then fell to the floor, destroyed the chain of causation, in the view of the law, between the act and the injury, on the theory that the wall was an intervening agency. We know of no instance where the law has been applied upon that theory under such circumstances, and we have been referred to none. Intervening agencies sometimes interrupt the current of responsible connection between negligent acts and injuries, but, as a rule, these agencies, in order to accomplish such result, must entirely supersede the original culpable act, and be in themselves responsible for the injury, and must be of such a character that they could not have been foreseen or anticipated by the original wrong-doer. If it required both agencies to produce the result, or if both contributed thereto as concurrent forces, the presence and assistance of one will not exculpate the other, because it...