Hunt v. Kile
This text of 104 F. 717 (Hunt v. Kile) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Three specific points were ruled in this case, namely, that there was error in refusing each of two special requests for instruction and in the instruction given upon tbe subject of damages. Tbe petition for rehearing is not addressed to those points, but complaint is made that the effect of a portion of tbe opinion is to limit the issues of the case to the question whether the rope of the apparatus used was of sufficient strength, and whether the failure to furnish chocks was negligence which made the master respon[718]*718sible, excluding, as it is claimed, inquiry whether the apparatus fur* nished was defective in that it did not allow the work to be performed in the usual way, and required it to be done in an unnecessarily hazardous way, in that it compelled the constant presence of a man with a pinch bar behind the log which was being loaded. Neither the opinion nor judgment of this court is to be considered as controlling or limiting the inquiry in those respects when the case shall again be brought to trial, and nothing herein shall be deemed to affect the question of the assumption of risk by the deceased. The petition for a rehearing is denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
104 F. 717, 44 C.C.A. 168, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 3974, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunt-v-kile-ca7-1900.