Coffeyville Shale Brick Co. v. Silvers

Supreme Court of Kansas

Coffeyville Shale Brick Co. v. Silvers

100 P. 1134, 79 Kan. 694, 1909 Kan. LEXIS 268

CourtSupreme Court of Kansas

DecidedMarch 6, 1909

DocketNo. 15,866

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 100 P. 1134 (Coffeyville Shale Brick Co. v. Silvers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coffeyville Shale Brick Co. v. Silvers, 100 P. 1134, 79 Kan. 694, 1909 Kan. LEXIS 268 (kan 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Plaintiff, who was asking for damages from the brick company for personal injuries sustained because of its negligence, produced testimony showing [695]*695that on the day of the injury he was called from the post of “off-bearer” to run the “cut off” machine; that a belt became entangled on an upper shaft, and to remedy it plaintiff ascended a ladder used in part for that purpose, which was defectively constructed and weak and which gave way under him, causing him to lose his balance and involuntarily throw his hand in contact with the machinery, whereby it was permanently injured. The court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence, but later granted a motion for a new trial, in which seven grounds were assigned, but the court did not specify the ground upon which the new trial was granted.

There was certainly sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury, and from plaintiff’s testimony it can not be said as a matter of law that he was guilty of contributory negligence. There is much discretion in the court in granting a new trial. It may be done when in the opinion of the trial court a party has not had substantial justice. (City of Sedan v. Church, 29 Kan. 190.) This court is slow to set aside such a ruling, and in the present case there appears tp have been a good reason for the order made.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

Plaintiff, who was asking for damages from the brick company for personal injuries sustained because of its negligence, produced testimony showing [695]*695that on the day of the injury he was called from the post of “off-bearer” to run the “cut off” machine; that a belt became entangled on an upper shaft, and to remedy it plaintiff ascended a ladder used in part for that purpose, which was defectively constructed and weak and which gave way under him, causing him to lose his balance and involuntarily throw his hand in contact with the machinery, whereby it was permanently injured. The court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence, but later granted a motion for a new trial, in which seven grounds were assigned, but the court did not specify the ground upon which the new trial was granted.

There was certainly sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury, and from plaintiff’s testimony it can not be said as a matter of law that he was guilty of contributory negligence. There is much discretion in the court in granting a new trial. It may be done when in the opinion of the trial court a party has not had substantial justice. (City of Sedan v. Church, 29 Kan. 190.) This court is slow to set aside such a ruling, and in the present case there appears tp have been a good reason for the order made.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 P. 1134, 79 Kan. 694, 1909 Kan. LEXIS 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coffeyville-shale-brick-co-v-silvers-kan-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack