Michigan Southern & Northern Indiana Railroad v. Lantz
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Bedford, Springville, Owensburg & Bloomfield Railroad v. Rainbolt (Ind. 1885)
- Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Lockridge (Ind. 1884)
- Duffy v. Howard (Ind. 1881)
- Pennsylvania Co. v. Gallentine (Ind. 1881)
- Mitchell v. Robinson (Ind. 1881)
- Jeffersonville, Madison, & Indianapolis Railroad v. Goldsmith (Ind. 1874)
- Riest v. City of Goshen (Ind. 1873)
- Newhouse v. Miller (Ind. 1871)
- Jeffersonville, Madison, & Indianapolis Railroad v. Ross (Ind. 1871)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Suit by the appellee against the railroad company for “an injury to the person.” The case was tried in the court below on an issue formed by the general denial. Verdict for the plaintiff; motion in arrest of judgment overruled; and this is the alleged error for which a reversal of the judgment is sought.
It is averred in the complaint that the defendant owned and was operating a railroad passing through Noble county,
It is claimed that the complaint is defective for not alleging that the injury occurred without the fault or negligence of the plaintiff. In The Evansville and Crawfordsville Railroad Co. v. Dexter, 24 Ind. 411, this court held that “the averment must be either expressly made in the complaint that the injury occurred without the fault or negligence of the- plaintiff, or it must clearly appear from the facts which • are alleged, that such must have been the case.”
In view of form 3STo. 14, “for injury to the person,” (2 G. & H. 377) we could not hold that an express averment of the kind-is necessary, but we think that the statutory form shows that the injury complained of was the result solely of “ the carelessness of the driver in the service of the defendant.” In the case at bar, the averments of the complaint show that the appellee was injured solely by the carelessness of the appellant in failing to repair its road track.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs;
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.