Sappenfield v. National Zinc Co.

Citations

• 94 Kan. 22
• 145 P. 862
• 1915 Kan. LEXIS 36

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Personal Injuries — Allegations of Negligence — Evidence of Concurring Conditions Not Error. In a personal-injury action it is not error to allow the plaintiff to introduce evidence that he was injured by reason of the defendant’s want of care, specifically set out in the petition, concurring with a condition not there referred to, where he does not rely on such condition as constituting negligence.</p> <p>2. Same — Admission of Incompetent Evidence — Subsequently Cured. Error in the admission of evidence in support of a particular allegation of negligence is ordinarily cured by the withdrawal of such allegation.</p> <p>3. Same — Defective Furnace — Promise to Repair — Admissible Evidence. Whether or not it would otherwise have been competent to show that the safety device, the want of which was relied on as constituting negligence, was used in another part of the defendant’s plant, evidence to that effect was rendered admissible by testimony that upon complaint having been made by the plaintiff a promise had been given to him that the same device in use elsewhere should be provided at the place where he was afterwards hurt.</p> <p>4. Same — Complaint of “Defects” — Promise to Repair. Where an employee complains of a condition affecting the safety of his place of work, and is promised a change in that regard, such complaint and promise have the same effect upon the employer’s liability for a subsequent injury, whether the condition complained of resulted from an appliance being out of order, or from its original unfitness to meet the needs of the situation, the important consideration being whether the condition was such that its continuance was -inconsistent with the exercise of ordinary care.</p>