Home/Indiana Court of Appeals/Emrich Furniture Co. v. Byrnes

Emrich Furniture Co. v. Byrnes

87 N.E. 1042, 44 Ind. App. 341, 1909 Ind. App. LEXIS 179
CourtIndiana Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 2, 1909
DocketNo. 6,457
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 87 N.E. 1042 (Emrich Furniture Co. v. Byrnes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Emrich Furniture Co. v. Byrnes, 87 N.E. 1042, 44 Ind. App. 341, 1909 Ind. App. LEXIS 179 (Ind. Ct. App. 1909).

Opinions

Rabb, J.

Appellee brought this action against appellant to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by him while engaged in appellant’s service, and through the alleged negligence of appellant.

The complaint was answered by a general denial. There was a jury trial, resulting in a verdict in favor of appellee, and with the verdict the jury returned answers to interrogatories submitted to them. Appellant’s motions for á judgment in its favor on the answers to interrogatories, and for a new trial, were overruled. These ruling's of the court below are assigned as error here, and we shall consider them in their order.

It is insisted that the answers to interrogatories returned by the jury show that appellee failed to make out a case against appellant, because (1) the answers disclose that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of appellant proximately causing appellee’s injury; (2) the interrogatories disclose that there was no evidence that the risk of the injury sustained by appellee was not an assumed risk of his employment; (3) that the answers to the interrogatories affirmatively show appellee to have been guilty of contributory negligence.

1. [344]*3442. [343]*343The answers to interrogatories in many respects, in which it is claimed they antagonize the general verdict, are neutralized by contradictions, and considering all the presumptions, inferences and intendments that are to be indulged in favor of the general verdict, and considering that the evidence actually given upon the trial of the cause cannot be considered in aid of the answers to the inter[344]*344rogatories to supply any omission therein, or to rebut any presumption or inference that might be indulged in favor of the general verdict, we think that it cannot be said that the answers to the interrogatories so antagonize the general verdict as to entitle the appellant to a judgment in its favor thereon, and that no error intervened in overruling its motion.

3. One of the reasons assigned for a new trial is the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, and this reason is pressed upon our consideration as one of the grounds for a reversal of the judgment. This court cannot relieve parties from mistakes made by the jury or court below in the determination of questions of fact; neither can it weigh the evidence. If there is any legal evidence to sustain the finding of the trial court or the verdict of the jury this court is bound to sustain such finding or verdict. But if there be no legal evidence to sustain such finding or verdict in favor of a party having the burden of the issue, such finding or verdict will require the reversal of the cause at the hands of the Appellate Court.

The evidence in this case discloses that the appellee was injured by the fall of a heavy iron frame, used in appellant’s furniture factory for compressing veneered boards. The frame which fell upon appellee was about forty-two inches in height, about the same in length, and twelve inches in width. It had a solid iron platform for a base, with flanges extending outward from each end, about four inches from the bottom and at right angles with another flange extending downward about two inches. The top of the frame was connected with the bottom by four round iron rods or tubes, about two inches in diameter, one at each corner, and through the top three screws passed, which were used to compress the material veneered, between the plate on the screw and the platform of the frame. An iron plate extended down from the front of the base of the plate, in slightly elliptical form, until at the center it was apparently on a level with the hot-[345]*345tom of the lower flange on the frame. There was, at the time appellee was injured, twenty-four of these frames in use in appellant’s factory. They all rested upon a wooden railway about thirty feet in length. The railway was composed of oak pieces from eight to twelve feet in length, and about four inches square, and the rails fitted into the angle formed by the flanges at each end of the frame. Each frame weighed about five hundred pounds, the top and base being of about equal weight. The frames were not attached to the rails, nor the rails to the floor, otherwise than by their own weight. The accompanying cut illustrates the character of the frame, and the manner in which it rested upon the rails, better than it can be described:

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

Related

Connor v. Jones
59 N.E.2d 577 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1945)
Wabash Railroad v. McDoniels
107 N.E. 291 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
87 N.E. 1042, 44 Ind. App. 341, 1909 Ind. App. LEXIS 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emrich-furniture-co-v-byrnes-indctapp-1909.