Public Utilities Co. v. McDonald

Indiana Court of Appeals

Public Utilities Co. v. McDonald

122 N.E. 11, 69 Ind. App. 403, 1919 Ind. App. LEXIS 108

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 17, 1919

DocketNo. 9,685

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 122 N.E. 11 (Public Utilities Co. v. McDonald) 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

Public Utilities Co. v. McDonald, 122 N.E. 11, 69 Ind. App. 403, 1919 Ind. App. LEXIS 108 (Ind. Ct. App. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Nichols, J.

This was an action brought by the appellee for personal injuries caused by the alleged negligence of the appellant, Public Utilities Company.

The appellee, at the time of his alleged injury, was in the employ of the appellant as a motorman on one of the cars of the appellant, and, while so engaged as such motorman, he claims to have been injured because of the defective condition of the brake appliances on the car which he was at the time operating.

Trial was had before a jury, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for the appellee. After motion for a new trial by appellant, which was overruled, this appeal is prosecuted. Appellant has filed its brief, from which it seems that substantial errors were committed by the trial court. The appellee has failed to file any brief, and has failed to appear at the oral argument at the time fixed by the court for the same. Appellee’s-default in filing his brief will [404]*404be considered and taken as a confession of error. Eigelsbach v. Kanne (1915), 184 Ind. 62, 110 N. E. 549; Huddleston v. Huddleston (1916), 184 Ind. 168, 110 N. E. 980; Veit v. Windhorst (1915), 184 Ind. 351, 110 N. E. 666; Burroughs v. Burroughs (1913), 180 Ind. 380, 103 N. E. 1.

Judgment is reversed witb instructions to grant a new trial.

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

Nichols, J.

This was an action brought by the appellee for personal injuries caused by the alleged negligence of the appellant, Public Utilities Company.

The appellee, at the time of his alleged injury, was in the employ of the appellant as a motorman on one of the cars of the appellant, and, while so engaged as such motorman, he claims to have been injured because of the defective condition of the brake appliances on the car which he was at the time operating.

Trial was had before a jury, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for the appellee. After motion for a new trial by appellant, which was overruled, this appeal is prosecuted. Appellant has filed its brief, from which it seems that substantial errors were committed by the trial court. The appellee has failed to file any brief, and has failed to appear at the oral argument at the time fixed by the court for the same. Appellee’s-default in filing his brief will [404]*404be considered and taken as a confession of error. Eigelsbach v. Kanne (1915), 184 Ind. 62, 110 N. E. 549; Huddleston v. Huddleston (1916), 184 Ind. 168, 110 N. E. 980; Veit v. Windhorst (1915), 184 Ind. 351, 110 N. E. 666; Burroughs v. Burroughs (1913), 180 Ind. 380, 103 N. E. 1.

Judgment is reversed witb instructions to grant a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 N.E. 11, 69 Ind. App. 403, 1919 Ind. App. LEXIS 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/public-utilities-co-v-mcdonald-indctapp-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack