Baldwin v. Lincoln County
| Decision Date | 27 August 1902 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | BALDWIN v. LINCOLN COUNTY. |
Appeal from superior court, Lincoln county; S. J. Chadwick, Judge.
Action by H. E. Baldwin against Lincoln county. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Crow & Williams and Myers & Warren, for appellant.
N. T Caton and Martin & Grant, for respondent.
Action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by reason of an alleged defective bridge on a public highway owned and maintained by respondent. In the complaint it is alleged that the bridge and highway were dangerous and defective, in that the planking and timbers were of insufficient strength, were worn and decayed, the flooring covering said bridge was not nailed or fastened to the supports, and the earth approach to said bridge was worn so that the flooring on the bridge was more than four inches higher than such earth approach; that appellant, by reason of the defective and dangerous condition of the bridge and earth approach, suffered severe and permanent injuries. The bridge in question was about 1l feet wide by 12 feet long, across a depression about 3 feet deep. Appellant and one Ellis were engaged in moving a large threshing machine, about 9 feet wide, weighing about 9,000 pounds, drawn by six horses, across the bridge, when the injury occurred. Appellant was walking on the bridge, by the side of the threshing machine. About midway thereof, when the rear wheels came to the planking, the weight of the machine rising on the bridge caused the flooring thereof to 'buckle up' and slide forward catching appellant's right leg about the ankle, breaking the bones. The defendant for answer to the complaint, denied the allegations of negligence on its part, and, by way of affirmative defense pleaded contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The reply denied the affirmative defense. Upon a trial of the cause the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. From a judgment on the verdict, plaintiff appeals.
Three alleged errors are relied on for a reversal. The first is that the trial court permitted respondent's witness Dr Whitney to answer the following question: Dr. Whitney was called as an expert witness by the defendant in the court below for the purpose of showing unskillful treatment of the injury. The question referred to the splints used by the plaintiff's physician when treatment was first applied to the broken limb. Respondent throughout the trial attempted to show that the person to whom appellant went for treatment was not a licensed practicing physician or surgeon, and that the plaintiff knew this fact, and that the medical treatment received by appellant was unskillful, and that the injury resulting to appellant was therefore greater than it otherwise would have been. The appellant was asked by respondent on cross-examination the following questions: Respondent concedes in his brief that the appellant upon receiving his injuries was bound to obtain timely medical assistance, in order to reduce the damages suffered as much as possible, and that it was his duty to see that his injuries were attended to with dispatch, and to seek the nearest competent physician. The injured party, having used ordinary care in this regard, cannot be held to assume the liability of improper treatment. Beach, Contrib. Neg. (3d Ed.) § 407. The converse of the rule must maintain, also,--that if the injured party was negligent in the employment of a competent physician, or employed some person whom he knew to be incompetent, when competent physicians were accessible, and improper treatment was resorted to, and the injuries thereby greatly increased, these facts may be shown in mitigation of damages. These facts were...
To continue reading
Request your trial