Root v. Cudahy Packing Co.

Citations

• 88 Kan. 413
• 129 P. 147
• 1913 Kan. LEXIS 361

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE.COURT.</p> <p>1. Evidence — Expert Witnesses — When Competent. In this state the opinions of experts are receivable in evidence only on the ground of necessity where no better evidence can be had, and are not receivable regarding an ultimate fact in issue where the subject can be presented to the jury so that the jury itself is capable of drawing the ultimate inference.</p> <p>2. Negligence — Packing Company Elevator — Best Evidence. In this case the opinions of experts were received in evidence to show that it is possible, under the principle upon which friction-hoist elevators are constructed, for the car to fall in the course of its ordinary use for packing-house purposes, although all the appliances are in good mechanical condition, and that such an elevator is unsafe for such use. It had been the business of the experts to construct, inspect and repair such elevators, with whose operation and use they were perfectly familiar, their experience having been gained in the principal packing houses of Kansas City, where such elevators have been in common use in large numbers for many' years. Held, the best evidence of the reliability or unreliability of such elevators consisted in the demonstrated results of their use; that with the facts relating to their performances before it the jury would have been competent to judge of their safety; and that the opinion evidence was improperly received.</p> <p>3. - Elevator Must be Reasonably Sáfe for Such Use. A packing company using an elevator for the purpose of conveying, truck loads of meat and the employees handling the trucks from one floor of its packing house to another owes such employees the duty of using ordinary care to furnish an elevator reasonably safe for such use.</p> <p>4. Pall op Elevator—No Presumption that Employer was Negligent. The sudden fall of such an elevator in the course of its ordinary use by a truckman, whereby he is injured, does not warrant a presumption of negligence contrib