Hatfield v. St. Paul & D. R. Co.

• Citation: 22 N.W. 176,33 Minn. 130
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
• Decision Date: 21 January 1885
• Parties: HATFIELD v ST. PAUL & D. R. CO.

33 Minn. 130

22 N.W. 176

HATFIELDvST. PAUL & D. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Filed January 21, 1885.

Appeal from an order of the district court, Ramsey county.

O'Brien & Wilson, for respondent, Lucy Hatfield.

James Smith, Jr., and I. V. D. Heard, for appellant, St. Paul & D. R. Co.

MITCHELL, J.

We have examined all the evidence in this case, and are of opinion that it justified the verdict.

2. The plaintiff, while leaving defendant's cars, fell or was thrown from the platform or steps of the car upon the ground, injuring the sciatic or great nerve of the thigh. The plaintiff, as a witness in her own behalf, testified that this had caused her great and constant pain, and had caused the thigh to shrink and had rendered her lame, and caused her to “limp” in walking. The counsel for defendant requested the court to direct her to walk across the court-room in presence of the jury, which the court declined to do, to which refusal defendant excepted.

As the object of all judicial investigations is, if possible, to do exact justice and obtain the truth in its entire fullness, we have no doubt of the power of the court in a proper case to require the party to perform a physical act before the jury that will illustrate or demonstrate the extent and character of his injuries. This is in accordance with analogous cases in other branches of the law. When a view of real estate will aid the jury in reaching a conclusion, it is within the discretion of the court to permit it. When an inspection of an article of personal property will aid them, it is not infrequent to cause the article to be brought into court for the same purpose. Line v. Taylor, 3 Fost. & F. 731; Lewis v. Hartley, 7 Car. & P. 405. The practice in patent and in certain equity cases, of allowing tests to be applied before the court, is somewhat analogous in principle. So is the practice of divorce courts, of ordering an examination of the person of the party in certain cases.

It is a common practice to allow plaintiffs, in actions for personal injuries, to exhibit to the jury their wounds in order to show their extent, or to enable a surgeon to demonstrate their nature and character. This has been held proper. Mulhado v. Brooklyn City R. Co. 30 N. Y. 370. If for these purposes a plaintiff may exhibit his injuries, there would seem to be no reason why, under proper circumstances, he may not be required to do the same thing, for a like purpose, upon request of the defendant. In...