Legal Opinion

Lauter v. Duckworth

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided December 17, 1897No. 2,049PublishedCited by 29 opinions

From the Marion Superior Court.

1Opinion of the CourtComstock, J.

— Action by appellee to recover dam1 ages for personal injuries occasioned by the alleged negligence of appellant. The complaint is in two paragraphs, but as it is conceded that the verdict was on the second paragraph, we do not set the first out. The second paragraph alleges that the defendant was the owner of a factory, and before hiring plaintiff, constructed an underground cistern near the factory to receive through pipes large discharges of steam, hot water and other fluids, and permitted the same to soak away through the bottom. The' cistern was walled with loose bricks, not cemented to…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Indiana Car Co. v. ParkerIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Ohio & Mississippi R. W. Co. v. CollarnIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  3. Todd v. FentonIndiana Supreme Court · 1878
  4. Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co. v. JudyIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Farman v. LaumanIndiana Supreme Court · 1881

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Indiana Natural & Illuminating Gas Co. v. AnthonyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1900
  2. City of Mt. Vernon v. HoehnIndiana Court of Appeals · 1899
  3. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Woodbury Glass Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1918
  4. Golibart v. SullivanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1903
  5. Norman v. HopperWashington Supreme Court · 1905

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API