[DOWNLOAD] "Belger Cartage Serv., Inc. v. Holland Constr. Co." by Supreme Court of Kansas " Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Belger Cartage Serv., Inc. v. Holland Constr. Co.
- Author : Supreme Court of Kansas
- Release Date : January 15, 1978
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 76 KB
Description
The opinion of the court was delivered by This is an action by the plaintiff, Belger Cartage Service, Inc., for damage to its crane as a result of an accident which occurred on April 4, 1972. Defendant, Holland Construction Company, counterclaimed for damage to its conveyor and for loss of earnings therefrom. Following a bench trial, the trial court granted judgment to the defendant on its counterclaim in the amount of $7,127.99 and on plaintiff's petition. Plaintiff appeals therefrom. The trial court made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On March 31, 1972, Gerald D. Humble, a foreman for defendant Holland ordered a 30-ton crane from Bud Kuhl, a dispatcher for plaintiff. The request also included that plaintiff supply an operator and oiler for the crane to be used on April 4, 1972. 2. On April 3, 1972, dispatcher Kuhl filled out a work order form formalizing the request made on March 31 and indicating the names of operator and oiler to transport and operate the crane. 3. The crane was delivered to the Holland Construction Company site by the operator Harlow and the oiler Platz on the morning of April 4, 1972. A copy of the work order was carried to the site by the operator, but there is conflicting testimony as to whether defendant's foreman Humble signed the work order at that time. 4. On the reverse side of the work order there appears in small print ten paragraphs attempting to establish the rights and obligations between the parties with respect to the use of the crane. 5. The undisputed testimony is that no one read the reverse side of the work order and no one on behalf of plaintiff pointed out the conditions set forth on the reverse side. 6. The operator and oiler received all their instructions to report to the Holland site from plaintiff's dispatcher and had no contact or consultation with the defendant prior to the morning of April 4, 1972. 7. The operator worked for plaintiff for thirteen years prior to April 4, 1972, and was a member of a union representing employees in his specialized field. The oiler had been employed by plaintiff for eight years; belonged to his respective specialized union; and had worked with the same operator for about six years. 8. The crane that plaintiff delivered to the site was approximately two years old and the crane's cable was the original cable, never having been replaced.