Miller v. Foundation Co.

Citations

• 93 Kan. 38
• 143 P. 493
• 1914 Kan. LEXIS 378

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Negligence — Unsafe Place to Work — Personal Injuries. In . an action for damages for personal injuries it was shown that the employing company in the construction of a bridge was driving piling with the driver placed upon a temporary structure above the surface of the river. Each time the hammer fell it would cause the hammer rope to slacken and strike against the side of the boom near where the plaintiff’s duties required him to stand. While thus en- ' gaged in the nighttime, with no light except a signal lantern which he held, he was struck by the slack of the hammer rope . • and thrown from the platform into the river. Held, that the plaintiff having been sent to work on the platform and his duties requiring him to remain there, it was, as to him, a place to work, and the duty devolved upon the master to see that it was reasonably safe.</p> <p>2. Same — Assumption of Bisk — Contributory Negligence — Questions of Fact. Upon the facts stated in the opinion it can not be said as a matter of law either that plaintiff assumed the • risk or that he was guilty of contributory negligence.</p> <p>3. Instructions — Relating to Assumed Risk and Contributory Negligence — Not Prejudicial. The failure of the court in some of the instructions to distinguish between the defense of contributory negligence and assumed risk is not regarded, upon - the facts of the present case, as prejudicial error, the court having in other instructions correctly defined contributory negligence.</p> <p>4. Evidence — That Plaintiff Was Married — Not Materially Prejudicial. While in an action for personal injuries it is ordinarily error for the plaintiff to be permitted to testify to the fact that he is married, it is held in this case that the admission of such testimony over the objections of the defendant was not materially prejudicial.</p> <p>5. Damages — Verdict—Item Not Proven — Judgment Modified. The jury allowed the plaintiff the full sum claimed in his p