39 Ind. App. 604 | Ind. Ct. App. | 1907
Action to recover damages for injuries sustained by appellee at a highway crossing by the alleged negligence of appellant in failing to restore and maintain said crossing in a safe condition for public travel. A ver
Under the first alleged error counsel challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict and the refusal of the court ,to give instructions six and seven and three-fourths requested.
On cross-examination appellee said: He got to this crossing coming east on the day of the accident about 2 o’clock p. m. It was a clear, nice day. He had good eyesight, and
Interrogatory eight is as follows: “Would the accident to plaintiff have happened simply on account of the condition of the highway at the crossing, except by reason of the manner in which his wagon was loaded and his own position on the sewer-pipe ? A. Yes.” While the meaning of this interrogatory and answer may not be clear, we think the jury intended to say that the accident would have happened on account of the condition of the highway without reference to the manner in which his wagon was loaded and his own position on the sewer-pipe. So far as these answers are not in conflict with one another, they are not irreconcilably in conflict with the general verdict, and appellant’s motion for judgment was therefore properly overruled.
There is evidence fairly tending to sustain the verdict, and the judgment is affirmed.