Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Faust

Dausman, J. Under the first assignment of error, the appellant contends that the answers to the interrogatories show (1) that the workman assumed the risk and (2) that he was not engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the accident. We cannot sustain either contention. The answers to the interrogatories do not show that the workman knew and appreciated the danger and then continued in the dangerous position. Pennsylvania Co. v. Stalker, Admx. (1918), 67 Ind. App. 329. Nor do the answers to the interrogatories preclude the legitimate conclusion that the workman was engaged at the time of the accident in interstate commerce. 18 R. C. L. 850 et seq.; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Carr (1915), 238 U. S. 260, *440 59 L. Ed. 1298. The answers to the interrogatories are not in irreconcilable conflict with the verdict. Under the second assignment of error, the appellant contends that the verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence, that certain instructions given are erroneous, and that certain instructions requested should have been given. We have carefully considered these contentions and we are of the opinion that there is no reversible error presented. The law applicable to the various phases of this case is well settled and a more extended discussion is unnecessary. Judgment affirmed.