« ПретходнаНастави »
159 Ind. 82; Pittsburgh Ry. Co. v. Gipe, 160 Ind. 360; Jarvis v. Hitch, 161 Ind. 217; Indianapolis Co. v. Foreman, 162 Ind. 85; Cleveland Ry. Co. v. Bergschicker, 162 Ind. 108; Pittsburgh Ry. Co. v. Collins, 163 Ind. 569; Southern Ind. Ry. Co. v. Fine, 163 Ind. 617; Cleveland Ry. Co. v. Goddard, 33 App. 321; Indianapolis Transit Co. v. Andis, 33 App. 625.
Complaints in actions under the employers liability act must allege that the defendant is a railroad or other corporation. Ft. Wayne Gas Co. v. Nieman, 33 App. 178.
In actions brought by employes to recover for personal injuries under the employers' liability act, it is not necessary to allege the absence of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Pittsburgh Ry. Co. v. Lightheiser, 163 Ind. 247; Pittsburgh Ry. Co. v. Collins, 163 Ind. 569.
When complaints in actions by employes for injuries must show that the employe did not assume the risk of being injured. American Co. v. Hullinger, 161 Ind. 673; Southern Ry. Co. v. Harrell, 161 Ind. 689; Indianapolis Co. v. Foreman, 162 Ind. 85. Section foremen and section men are fellow servants while going to and returning from work on a railroad car. Thacker v. Chicago Ry. Co. 159 Ind. 82.
If an employe has authority to direct and control other employes he is the representative of the employer, and the negligence of the employe vested with such authority is the negligence of the employer. Terre Haute R. R. Co. v. Rittenhouse, 28 App. 633.
An employe is a vice-principal only when he is the representative of the master in respect to those duties which he can not escape by a delegation of them. Southern Ry. Co. v. Harrell, 161 Ind. 689.
When a private corporation is in the hands of a receiver who is conducting the business thereof, such receiver is liable under the employers liability act for injuries to employes the same as such corporation would be liable under similar circumstances. Hunt v. Conner, 26 App. 41.
The employers liability act does not relieve employes of any care and caution to avoid injuries that is imposed by the common law. Corning Steel Co. v. Pohlplatz, 29 App. 250.
7086. Laws of other state no defense.
The provision of section 4 of the employers liability act prohibiting the pleading of the law of the state where an injury occurred to an employe in defense of an action brought in this state to recover damages for such injury, is unconstitutional. Baltimore Ry. Co. v. Reed, 158 Ind. 25.
The employers liability act of this state has no effect as to injuries which occur to employes in another state, and no recovery can be had for such injuries in this state unless a recovery therefor could be had under the laws of the state where the injury occurred. Baltimore Ry. Co. v. Reed, 158 Ind. 25; Baltimore Ry. Co. v. Jones, 158
7087. Contracts of release void.
When an employe releases an employer from liability for injuries for a specified consideration stated in the release, the consideration is contractual and the employe can not show that there was no consideration for the release. Indianapolis Ry. Co. v. Houlihan, 157 Ind. 494.
ARTICLE 7.-WOMEN AND CHILDREN EMPLOYES.
70871. Machinery, regulation, cleaning.
70871. Machinery, regulation, cleaning.
What constitutes a "machine" within the meaning of the act regulating the operation of factories. Green v. American Car Co. 163 Ind. 135.
If employers fail to comply with the statute requiring machinery to be guarded, they may be liable for injuries to employes, although such employes knew that the machinery was not guarded. Monteith v. Kokomo Co. 159 Ind. 149; Blanchard-Hamilton Co. v. Colvin, 32 App. 398; American Co. v. Clark, 32 App. 644.
An employer does not become liable for failure to, furnish belt-shifters unless he fails to obey the orders of the factory inspector to furnish such shifters. Co. v. Wells, 31 App. 460.
If an employer fails to guard vats as required by statute, and the death of an employe is caused by such failure, the employer is liable. Chamberlain v. Waymire, 32 App. 442.
The doctrine of assumed risks has no application when the death of or injury to an employe is caused by a failure on the part of an employer to guard and protect machinery and vats as required by statute. Chamberlain v. Waymire, 32 App. 442; American Car Co. v. Clark, 32 App. 644.
A complaint by an employe to recover for an injury caused by the failure of the employer to guard machinery must show that the injury resulted because the machinery was not guarded. Rietman v. Bangert, 26 App. 468.
A complaint to recovery for an injury because machinery was not guarded is not good under the common law unless it is alleged that the employe was ignorant of the condition of the machinery and the dangers resulting therefrom. Indiana Co. v. Wells, 31 App. 460.
Employers permitting persons under sixteen years of age to clean machinery while in motion are liable for injuries occurring while such persons are engaged in such work. Brower v. Lock, 31 App. 353.
In an action to recovery for injuries to an employe because machinery was not guarded, a letter written by the state factory inspector to the employer concerning the guarding of the machinery is admissible in evidence. Blanchard-Hamilton Co. v. Colvin, 32 App. 398.
ARTICLE 8.-BOILER INSPECTION.
7087b1. Boilers, safety appliances.
7087c1. Inspecting boilers.
7087d1. Boiler houses, guages.
7087el. Duty of prosecutor.
[Acts 1903, p. 535. In force April 23, 1903.]
7087b1. Boilers, safety appliances.-1. That it shall be the duty of every person, firm or corporation owning or using or causing to be used any steam boiler for generating steam to be applied to machinery in all industrial institutions subject to inspection by the department of inspection, shall provide them with a full complement of gauge-cocks, some
visible means of indicating the water level, one steam gauge, one fusible plug properly inserted, one safety valve, all to be kept in good working order (the area of said valve, if known as a pop-valve, shall be in the ratio of one square inch of area to three square feet of grate surface), a lever and ball safety valve in the ratio of. one square inch of area to two square feet of grate surface: Provided, That fusible plugs shall be required only in boilers having crown sheets.
7087c1. Inspecting boilers.--2. That the owner, agent, manager, or lessee of any boiler or boilers described in section 1 of this act, of ten or more horse power, shall cause such boiler or boilers to be inspected, internally, once in six months by a practical boilermaker of not less than five years' experience; or a practical steam engineer who has had not less than ten years' experience with steam boilers carrying not less than seventy (70) pounds pressure per square inch; or by a boiler inspector of any company doing business under the laws of the state, who shall furnish to the owner, agent, or lessee of such boiler a certificate of inspection stating the kind and showing the condition of said boiler, the connections, and maximum pressure to be carried by said boiler; such certificate to be retained in the office of said establishment and to be shown to the chief inspector of the department of inspection or his deputy when required.
7087d1. Boiler houses, gauges.-3. Every boiler house in which a boiler, or nest, or battery of boilers is placed shall be provided with a steam gauge or gauges, properly connected with the boilers, and where the engine is in a separate room, or more than forty feet distant from the gauge or nearest boiler, shall have another gauge attached to the steam pipe, so the engineer can readily ascertain the pressure carried. safety valves of steam boilers subject to inspection under this act shall be loaded to sustain only the maximum pressure allowed by said certificate of inspection.
7087e1. Duty of prosecutor.-4. The prosecuting attorney of any county of this state is hereby required upon request of the chief inspector of the department of inspection, his deputy or any other person of full age, to commence and prosecute to a termination before any court of competent jurisdiction, in the name of the state, actions or proceedings against any person, firm or corporation reported to him to have violated the provisions of this act.
7087f1. Violations, penalty.-5. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to knowingly operate any aforesaid boilers except as provided for in this act, and for the violation of section 1 or 3 a fine of not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) shall be assessed for each offense. Each day such violation or violations continue shall constitute a separate offense. Any person, firm or corporation knowingly failing to comply with section 2 of this act, or any order issued by the department of inspection in accordance therewith, shall be fined not less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) nor more than one hundred dollars ($100.00).
LANDLORD AND TENANT.
Section numbers to notes refer to Revised Statutes of 1901.
Sections omitted have not been construed since 1901.
SEC. 7106. 7107.
Tenancies at will and from year
7094. Notice, when not necessary. 7105. Lien of landlord on crop.
Suit for possession.
Circuit courts have concurrent jurisdiction.
7118. Forcible entry and detainer.
7089. Tenancies at will and from year to year.
If a landlord notifies a tenant during his term that if he holds over his rent will be so much per month, and the tenant holds over without notice of an acceptance of the proposition of the landlord, a new term is not created. Lautman v. Miller, 158 Ind. 382.
If a tenant for three years holds over at the end of his term with the consent of the landlord, he becomes a tenant from from year to year under the terms expressed in the contract under which he entered into possession. Ridgeway v. Hannum, 29 App. 124.
Contracts granting the right to enter on lands and explore for and remove gas or oil for an indefinite period, an annual sum to be paid for such right, do not create tenancies from year to year, and failure to pay rent does not terminate the contract but gives the landowner the right to do so. Hancock v. Diamond Glass Co. 162 Ind. 146.
When an employe occupies premises of his employer under his contract of employment the relation of landlord and tenant does not exist between the parties. Heffelfinger v. Fulton, 25 App. 33.
7094. Notice, when not necessary.
If a tenant from month to month is paying rent in advance and he fails to pay rent when due the tenancy is terminated without notice. Ingalls v. Bissot, 25 App. 130.
When the consideration for the use of premises is a monthly payment in advance of a sum of money and the use of gas by the lessor, a failure to pay the monthly payment does not entitle the lessor to possession if he continues the use of gas. King v. Morristown Co. 31 App. 476.
7105. Lien of landlord on crop.
If rent is to be paid partly in money and partly in crops raised, the tenant to have no title to the crops until the same was measured and the share of the landlord delivered and the cash rent paid, the landlord may sue a purchaser of the crops
from the tenant in violation of the contract for conversion. App. 348.
Gifford v. Meyers, 27
7106. Suit for possession.
If a tenant from month to month is to pay rent in advance and he fails to pay rent when due, the landlord may sue for possession without a demand for rent or a notice to quit. Ingalls v. Bissot, 25 App. 130.
If the consideration for the use of premises is the payment of a sum of money monthly in advance and the use of gas by the lessor, a failure to pay the money when due does not entitle the lessor to possession so long as he continues to use gas. King v. Morristown Co. 31 App. 476.
If a suit for possession is based upon the ground of failure to pay rent when due and a ten days' notice to quit, the plaintiff must show that rent was due when notice was given and that it had not been paid when the ten days expired. Lodge v. Routh, 163 Ind. 1.
7107. Circuit courts have concurrent jurisdiction.
If a landlord sues a tenant for possession in the circuit court, all defenses may be proven without plea that may be so proven before justices of the peace. Pittsburgh Ry. Co. 25 App. 405.
7118. Forcible entry and detainer.
If an employe occupies a house of the employer as a part of his contract of employment, he is not a tenant of the employer and can not maintain an action under the forcible entry and detainer statute. Heffelfinger v. Fulton, 25 App. 33.