LEGAL DOCUMENT

Case: William D. Gallowshaw vs. The Lonsdale Company
Citation: 25 R.I. 383
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island
Decision Date: 1903-07-25
Docket Number: 
Pages: 383–384
Volume: 25
Reporter: Rhode Island Reports

Parties: William D. Gallowshaw vs. The Lonsdale Company.

William D. Gallowshaw vs. The Lonsdale Company.
PROVIDENCE
JULY 25, 1903.
Present: Stiness, C. J., Douglas, J.
(1) New Trial. Entry of Judgment for Defendant.
Gen. Laws cap. 251, § 11, providing that the Appellate Division, after considering a petition for new trial, may direct entry of judgment and make such further orders in the cause as to law and justice shall appertain, authorizes the entry of judgment for defendant, upon petition of plaintiif for new trial. There is no question for a jury when facts are not controverted, or it clearly appears what course a person of ordinary prudence would pursue, or where the standard of duty is fixed or the negligence is clearly defined and palpable.
(2) Negligence. Master and, Servant. Elevators.-
Where compliance by the defendant with the statute in regard to elevators is shown, with no evidence of other fault, no negligence appears.
Trespass on the Case for negligence.
Heard on motion of plaintiff for re-argument after entry of judgment for defendant.

Per Curiam.
Gen. Laws cap. 251, § 11, provides that the Appellate Division, after considering a petition for new trial, may direct entry of judgment and make such further orders in the cause as to law and justice shall appertain.
The court did not hold that a compliance with the law in regard to elevators was “sufficient in itself to compel a jury to find that the defendant used due care,” but it held that the compliance with the statute, which furnished a warning, being shown, with no evidence of other fault by the defendant, there was no negligence on its part.
The statutes of 1901-1902 referred to in the motion for re-argument were passed after the accident, and cannot be considered.
Gen. Laws cap. 108, § 15, has no application, as the elevator-well was inaccessible from without when the elevator was moving. The death .of the boy was hot caused by falling into the elevator-well, but by the pushing of the trap-door which guarded it.
Hugh J. Carroll, for plaintiff.
Miller & Carroll, for defendant.
There is no question for a jury when fact's are not controverted, or it clearly appears what course a person of ordinary prudence would pursue, or where the standard of duty is fixed or the negligence is clearly defined and palpable. Elliott v. Newport, 18 R. I. 707.
Motion for re-argument denied.