L.S. AYRES & CO. v. HICKS Sup. Ct. of Ind., 40 N.E.2d 334, 41 N.E.2d 195, 356 (1942). CASE BRIEF

L.S. AYRES & CO. V. HICKS

Sup. Ct. of Ind., 40 N.E.2d 334, 41 N.E.2d 195, 356 (1942)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Ayres (D) sought review of a decision which granted Hicks (P) damages for personal injuries sustained on the D's property, overruled D's motion for a judgment on the interrogatories and the answers thereto, and overruled the D's motion for a new trial.

FACTS: P was a six-year-old boy who visited D's department store with his mother while she was shopping. P was descending from the third floor on an escalator, and he fell at the second floor landing and some fingers of both his hands were caught in the moving parts of the escalator at the place where it disappears into the floor. P sued D. Claiming a that D was negligent in its operation of the escalator and that P's injury was worsened by D's failure to stop the escalator sooner. The jury found that the escalators with which the appellant's store was equipped were purchased and installed in 1934; that no escalator was made prior to the accident that was safer than the one in use; that it was not the practice of stores installing escalators to have an attendant after a year; that the escalator on which P was injured was equipped with switch buttons at each floor landing by which it could be stopped in about 2 1/2 steps; that D had clerks working within 50 feet of the place where P was injured, all of whom had not been instructed how to stop the escalator; that the escalator was moving at the rate of 90 feet per minute; that P's fingers were caught in the mechanism practically as soon as he fell; that the escalator ran 'approximately 70 steps (of 15 inches) or more' before it was stopped; that it was from 3 to 5 minutes after P was first injured before his fingers were released; and that the appellee's injuries were increased by the grinding effect on his fingers which continued until the escalator was stopped. P got the judgment and a number of motions for judgment and a new trial were denied and D appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner