Turner v. Richmond & Rappahannock River Railway Co.

Citations

• 121 Va. 194
• 92 S.E. 841
• 1917 Va. LEXIS 24

Syllabus

<p>1. Appeal and Error — Second Trial. — Where a trial has been had in an action at law and a verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiff, which the trial court set aside, and to which ruling the plaintiff excepted, and at the second trial the plaintiff declined to introduce any evidence and suffered a verdict to be found for the defendant, which verdict he moved to set aside and excepted to the action of the trial court overruling that motion and entering judgment for the defendant, the Supreme Court of Appeals must review the proceeding on the first trial, and if it finds that error was committed in setting aside the firts verdict, it must annuli all. proceedings subsequent to that verdict, and render judgment thereon.</p> <p>2. Master and Servant — Assumption of Risk — Question for Jwy.— Whether or not a servant knew or ought to have known of the dangerous condition of his place of work and hence assumed the risk thereof is a question for the jury, when the danger is not so open and obvious and not so apparent as to charge him with knowledge thereof as a matter of law.</p> <p>8. New Trial — Verdict Contrary to the Law and the Evidence— Conflicting Evidence. — Where a question was resolved by the verdict of the jury in favor of the plaintiff on conflicting evidence, the verdict ought not to be disturbed, provided the case was fairly submitted to the jury on the instructions.</p> <p>4. Master and Servant — Assumption of Risk — Instructions—Case at Bar — Appeal and Error — Harmless Error. — In an action by a servant against his master for injuries inflicted upon him from being kicked by a mule, the property of the master, the court instructed the jury that the servant did not assume the risk of injury by a vicious mule, about which he had to work, but of the vicious and dangerous character of which he did not know and could not have found out by the exercise of ordinary care, and of which he was not warned by defendant or its employees, who knew or ought to have know