Detroit & Ironton Rd. Co. v. Vogeley
The Detroit Ironton Rd. Co. v. Vogeley.
Opinion of the Court
WILLIAMS, J.
Minnie Vogeley instituted this action against the Detroit and Ironton Rd. Co. in the Fulton Common Pleas, for the purpose of recovering for damages sustained by her machine. It seems that she was passing one of the company’s crossings and there happened to be a plank missing, so that a deep hole between the tracks was the result. The front wheels of the machine dropped into. the excavation, tnd the engine hit the nearer rail, and was considerably damaged. The company, however, did not cross-examine Vogeley, nor was evidence offered after she rested her case. Judgment in the lower court was in favor of Vog-eley.
Eroor was prosecuted by the company and it contended that the court erred in permitting the introduction of evidence by allowing Vog-eley to testify as to the value of her own car. It was claimed that the court erred in not directing a verdict in its favor, for the reason that the evidence did not tend to show that any duty rested upon the company to keep the crossing in repair. It was also claimed the lower court erred in striking out the second defense of the answer and the interrogatories attached to the answer.
The Court of Appeals held:
1. There was no error in allowing Vogeley to testify as to the value of her car, for as a general rule, the owner of property has, by reason of that fact, a sufficient knowledge of its value to be qualified to testify regarding it.
2. The undisputed evidence in the case was that the crossing was that of the company and the inference follows from the undisputed evidence that the railroad was being operated by the company.
3. Under the undisputed evidence, the statement of the lower court that the company admitted in its answer that which was averred in Vogeley’s petition, in the courts charge, was not prejudicial error.
4.Interrogatories pertain wholely to the matter averred in the second defense and if the court was warranted in striking out the second defense it was also warranted in striking out the interrogatories.
Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.