Indianapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Johnson
Indiana Supreme Court
From the Vigo Superior Court.
1Opinion of the CourtElliott, J.
The first paragraph of the appellee’s complaint alleges that he was employed by the appellant as switch-man, and that while engaged in coupling cars he was injured without any fault on his part. The cause of the injury is thus stated: “And the plaintiff says that said cars were wholly and totally unfit for the purpose of transporting rails, and that said injury was sustained.by him through and in consequence of the negligence and fault of defendant in this, that defendant suffered, permitted and directed said cars to be used for transportation of said rails, when it knew, and had good reason…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Indiana Car Co. v. ParkerIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Ragsdale v. MitchellIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Reynolds v. CopelandIndiana Supreme Court · 1880
- State v. WenzelIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Smith v. PotterMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Co. v. AdamsIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- Cincinnati, Hamilton & Indianapolis Railroad v. MaddenIndiana Supreme Court · 1893
- Brazil Block Coal Co. v. YoungIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
- Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. StupakIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co. v. BarkerIndiana Supreme Court · 1908
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.