Northern Indiana Fuel & Light Co. v. Eldridge

Indiana Court of Appeals

Northern Indiana Fuel & Light Co. v. Eldridge

155 N.E. 923, 86 Ind. App. 735, 1927 Ind. App. LEXIS 182

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 7, 1927

DocketNo. 12,635.

StatusPublished

This text of 155 N.E. 923 (Northern Indiana Fuel & Light Co. v. Eldridge) 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

Northern Indiana Fuel & Light Co. v. Eldridge, 155 N.E. 923, 86 Ind. App. 735, 1927 Ind. App. LEXIS 182 (Ind. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

McMahan, C. J.

— Action by appellee for damages alleged to have been received because of the negligence of appellant in pil *736 ing gas pipes in a public street next to and immediately adjacent to the sidewalk in such a manner that they were liable to roll over onto the sidewalk. The complaint after alleging that appellant was negligent in so leaving the pipe next to the sidewalk and in failing to protect or secure them from rolling over onto the sidewalk alleges that appellee while walking along the sidewalk in the nighttime, stepped on a piece of the pipe which had been negligently placed there by appellant and that he was thereby thrown to the sidewalk and severely injured. There was a verdict and judgment for appellee for $500; hence this appeal;

The' error assigned is the overruling of appellant’s motion for a new trial, the specifications of which are that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence, that it is contrary to law, and the giving and refusing to give certain instructions.

Appellant contends there is no proof of negligence on its part, that an independent human agency intervened between the alleged negligence of appellant and the injury to appellee, and that it was the act of a third person that caused the injury to appellee. In so far as these contentions are concerned the evidence is ample to sustain a finding that appellant was negligent in leaving the pipe in the street in a position where they were liable to roll over onto the sidewalk. No attempt has been made to point out any evidence tending to show thp intervention of an intervening agent.

No reversible error is shown in the giving or the refusal to give instructions. See Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. McCartney (1890), 121 Ind. 385, 387, 23 N. E. 258.

Judgment, affirmed.

Dausman, J., absent.

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

McMahan, C. J.

— Action by appellee for damages alleged to have been received because of the negligence of appellant in pil *736 ing gas pipes in a public street next to and immediately adjacent to the sidewalk in such a manner that they were liable to roll over onto the sidewalk. The complaint after alleging that appellant was negligent in so leaving the pipe next to the sidewalk and in failing to protect or secure them from rolling over onto the sidewalk alleges that appellee while walking along the sidewalk in the nighttime, stepped on a piece of the pipe which had been negligently placed there by appellant and that he was thereby thrown to the sidewalk and severely injured. There was a verdict and judgment for appellee for $500; hence this appeal;

The' error assigned is the overruling of appellant’s motion for a new trial, the specifications of which are that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence, that it is contrary to law, and the giving and refusing to give certain instructions.

Appellant contends there is no proof of negligence on its part, that an independent human agency intervened between the alleged negligence of appellant and the injury to appellee, and that it was the act of a third person that caused the injury to appellee. In so far as these contentions are concerned the evidence is ample to sustain a finding that appellant was negligent in leaving the pipe in the street in a position where they were liable to roll over onto the sidewalk. No attempt has been made to point out any evidence tending to show thp intervention of an intervening agent.

No reversible error is shown in the giving or the refusal to give instructions. See Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. McCartney (1890), 121 Ind. 385, 387, 23 N. E. 258.

Judgment, affirmed.

Dausman, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 N.E. 923, 86 Ind. App. 735, 1927 Ind. App. LEXIS 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northern-indiana-fuel-light-co-v-eldridge-indctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack