Case Name: The Louisville, New Albany and Chicago Railway Company v. Schmidt, by Nest Friend
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1890-09-17
Citations: 126 Ind. 290
Docket Number: No. 14,029
Parties: The Louisville, New Albany and Chicago Railway Company v. Schmidt, by Nest Friend.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 126
Pages: 290–294

Head Matter:
No. 14,029.
The Louisville, New Albany and Chicago Railway Company v. Schmidt, by Nest Friend.
Pbactice. — Assignment of Error. — Questions Presented Therein. — Failure to Discuss. — Effect of. — Special Verdict. — Where counsel fail to discuss any question presented by the record they thereby waive any that may have been involved by their assignment of error. No question is presented as to the sufficiency of the facts found in the special verdict to entitle the appellee to judgment when counsel fail to discuss the question presented by the assignment of error as to the sufficiency of the special verdict, and no objection whatever is pointed out or suggested.
Kaibboad. — Negligence.—Injury to Infant. — Bumning Switch. — In an action for damages for negligence on the part of the defendant railroad company, whereby a child of tender years was injured by a car running detached from the train at a street crossing, in the city of New Albany, the evidence showed that the employees in charge of a heavy freight train were making a running switch, crossing the public streets in the city of New Albany, where the tracks were continually being crossed and recrossed by the public, and by children, which fact was well known to said employees, and that at the time of the accident they had no watchman at the front end of the train, and no precaution was taken to avoid injury to persons travelling upon said streets and liable to cross the tracks at any time. The brakeman was upon the back end of the detached car, and gave no heed to persons and children who might be crossing the track in front of the car, and could not see what was in front.
Held, that' the evidence clearly established negligence on the part of the defendant company.
From the Floyd Circuit Court.
C. L. Jewett, G. W. Friedley, G. R. Eldridge, E. C. Field and C. C. Matson, for appellant.
D. C. Anthony and L. M. Ninde, for appellee.

Opinion:
Olds, J.
— This is an action for damages for negligence on the part of the appellant, whereby the appellee was injured at a street crossing, in the city of New Albany. The case was once tried, resulting in a verdict and judgment against the appellant, and appeal taken to this court, and reversed for the insufficiency of the second paragraph of the com plaint. Louisville, etc., R. W. Co. v. Schmidt, 106 Ind. 73. After the case was certified back the second páragraph of the complaint was dismissed by the appellee, and the cause retried on the first paragraph of the complaint, resulting in a verdict and judgment for the appellee, from which this appeal is prosecuted. The only question discussed by counsel for appellant in their brief is the sufficiency of the second paragraph of the complaint, alleging that the second trial was had upon the second paragraph. Since the filing of the appellant's brief the record has been corrected and properly certified, showing that the cause was dismissed as to the second paragraph, and that the second trial was had on the first paragraph. Since the correction of the record counsel have had ample time to correct their brief, and discuss any questions they desired.
Filed Sept. 17, 1890.
Counsel for appellant having failed to discuss any question presented by the record, they have waived any that may have been involved by their assignment of error.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.