Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Warrum

82 N.E. 934, 42 Ind. App. 179, 1907 Ind. App. LEXIS 4
CourtIndiana Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 10, 1907
DocketNo. 6,078
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 82 N.E. 934 (Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Warrum) 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
Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Warrum, 82 N.E. 934, 42 Ind. App. 179, 1907 Ind. App. LEXIS 4 (Ind. Ct. App. 1907).

Opinions

Rabb, J.

Appellant’s passenger depot in the city of Greenfield is located half way between Pennsylvania street on the east, and Mechanic street on the west. In front of the depot the appellant has built, for the accommodation of its business, a substantial brick platform, from twelve to sixteen feet wide, and extending from Pennsylvania street to Mechanic street, which, from its location and manner of [182]*182construction, is convenient for use by the public as a sidewalk, and it is claimed by the appellee' that this platform is laid along the side of and within the limits of a public street of said city, and that the public have a right to use and do use it as a sidewalk. (See plat.) The appellee while passing along said platform, on his way to his work, and on no business relating in any manner to the affairs of the appellant, was struck and injured by a mail sack thrown by a-United States postal clerk from a mail-ear in one of appellant’s passenger- and mail-trains while the same was running at a high rate of speed over appellant’s road. This action was brought against appellant to recover damages for the injury, charging appellant with negligence. The substantial averments of the complaint with reference to the charge of negligence are that for more than two years last past it had been the daily custom of the United States mail clerks on the mail-cars running over appellant’s road to throw from the rapidly-moving trains running over said road, onto said alleged sidewalk, large sacks of mail at such time and in such manner as to be dangerous to those using said walk, and that this was done with the knowledge of appellant, and without objection from it, and-that appellee had no knowledge that it was the custom of such mail clerks to throw out such mail from rapidly-moving cars at a point west of appellant’s depot, but that such was the fact, and that the practice was known to and permitted by the appellant. The cause was tried by a jury. Verdict and judgment for appellee.

1. One of the errors assigned and relied upon for reversal is the action of the court below in overruling appellant’s demurrer to the first paragraph of the complaint. t The record affirmatively shows that no evidence was introduced in support of this paragraph of the complaint, and that the finding and judgment rest exclusively upon the second paragraph of the complaint. This assigned error, if any, was therefore harmless.

[183]*183

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

Related

Lindsay v. Baltimore & Ohio Rd.
128 N.E.2d 242 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1954)
Shown v. Taylor
88 N.E.2d 783 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1949)
People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, Inc.
196 P.2d 570 (California Supreme Court, 1948)
Lewis v. Pennsylvania Railroad
165 N.E. 774 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1929)
Louisville & N. R. v. Daniels
99 So. 434 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1924)
Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Hoffman
107 N.E. 315 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1914)
Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co. v. Gorman
106 N.E. 897 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1914)
Hamilton, Harris & Co. v. Larrimer
105 N.E. 43 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1914)
Model Automobile Co. v. Sterling
99 N.E. 51 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1912)
Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Lynch
87 N.E. 40 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 N.E. 934, 42 Ind. App. 179, 1907 Ind. App. LEXIS 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pittsburgh-cincinnati-chicago-st-louis-railway-co-v-warrum-indctapp-1907.