Skip to main content

Ruehl v. Lidgerwood Rural Telephone Co.

Unknown CourtMarch 15, 1912Cited 31 times

Case Details

Judge(s)
Bruce
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Appeal from District Court of Richland county; directed verdict by trial court

Outcome

Defendant telephone company prevailed when the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant in a wrongful death negligence action. Plaintiff appealed the directed verdict.

Excerpt

<p>Appeal from the District Court of Richland county; Allen, J.</p> <p>Action under the statute to recover damages caused by death by wrongful act. Verdict directed in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appeals.</p> <p>This is an action brought under the statute by Louis Ruehl, the father of, and administrator of the estate of, Louis Ruehl, Jr., deceased, for and on behalf of the father and mother and sisters of the deceased, to recover damages for the death of the said Louis Ruehl, Jr., alleged to have been occasioned by the defendant by carelessly and negligently leaving a telephone' post hole “without placing any guards over or above the same, and without taking any precaution of any kind to avoid.” the accident. The evidence is to the effect that on or about the 1st day of April, 1910, one L. J. Christenson was president and manager of the defendant telephone company; that about such time the company arranged to extend its line past the house of the plaintiff and to put a telephone therein; that the dwelling house of the plaintiff stood about 4 rods from the east end of the section line, on which was laid out a traveled highway; that before the holes in which the telephone poles were to be set were dug, defendant telephone company had caused the necessary poles to be hauled and placed along the route of the proposed extension, at about the places where the same were to be set, and had caused the places where it was proposed to have the holes dug marked or designated by sticks or broken lath; that on or about the 1st day of April, 1910, Christenson, on behalf of the telephone company, employed one Frank Zimmerman to dig a line of post holes along the said extension, and agreed to pay him 12-J cents for each hole; that Christenson told said Zimmerman what to do, and supplied him with the tools, and told him how to do the work; that the post holes were to be 4|- feet deep, and that this depth was directed by Christenson; that the spade used by Zimmerman was given to him

Similar Rulings

Bell v. Land Title Guarantee Co
COLOCTAPPMay 2018

Buy and Sell Contract—Mineral Rights—Warranty Deed—Negligence—Breach of Contract—Statute of Limitations—Third Party—Cause of Action—Accrual Date. The Bells hired Orr Land Company LLC (Orr) and its employee Ellerman to represent them in selling their real property. Orr found a buyer and the Bells entered into a buy and sell contract with the buyer, which provided, as pertinent here, that the sale excluded all oil, gas, and mineral rights in the property. Orr then retained Land Title Guarantee Company (Land Title) to draft closing documents, including the warranty deed. In 2005 the Bells signed the warranty deed and sold the property to the buyer. The Bells didn't know that the warranty deed prepared by Land Title didn't contain any language reserving the Bells' mineral rights as provided in the buy and sell contract. For over nine years, the Bells continued to receive the mineral owner's royalty payments due under an oil and gas lease on the property. In 2014 the lessee oil and gas company learned that the Bells didn't own the mineral rights, so it began sending the payments to the buyer. After that, the Bells discovered that the warranty deed didn't reserve their mineral rights as provided in the buy and sell contract. In 2016 the Bells filed this negligence and breach of contract action against defendants Land Title, Orr, and Ellerman. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the Bells' claims were untimely because the statute of limitations had run. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Bells contended that the district court erred in granting defendants' motions to dismiss because they sufficiently alleged facts that, if true, establish that the statute of limitations didn't begin to accrue on their claims until the oil and gas company ceased payment in September 2014, which is when they contended they discovered that the warranty deed didn't reserve their mineral rights. A plaintiff must commence tort actions within two years

Defendant Win
Kahn
Cal. SupremeAug 2003
Plaintiff Win
Austin B. v. Escondido Union School District
Cal. Ct. App.Apr 2007
Defendant Win
Frank Stevenson v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
8th CircuitJan 2004
Plaintiff Win
Scheffler
La.Feb 2007
Defendant Win

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.