Belt Electric Line Co. v. Allen

• Decision Date: 11 January 1898
• Parties: BELT ELECTRIC LINE CO. v. ALLEN.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

44 S.W. 89

102 Ky. 551

BELT ELECTRIC LINE CO. v. ALLEN.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 11, 1898

Appeal from circuit court, Fayette county.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Susan Allen against the Belt Electric Line Company to recover damages for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Brouston & Allen and Breckinridge & Shelby, for appellant.

T. T Forman and George Denny, Jr., for appellee.

HAZELRIGG J.

In this action, for injuries received from falling through a trapdoor left open on the floor of the company's transfer office or station, the appellee recovered a judgment for $1,400. Complaint is made of the instructions, and the finding of the jury, under the evidence, for any sum, and especially for the amount found. The special error complained of, however, is that the trial court refused the company's request to have the injured ankle or ankles of the plaintiff examined by competent surgeons or physicians selected by the company. Of the various errors suggested, other than the last one, it is only necessary to say that the evidence supports the finding and the instructions fairly presented the issues involved to the jury. Whether the boy who left the trapdoor open was on the pay rolls of the company or not, he was in charge of this door, and under the necessity of passing into the cellar through it, under the direct command and control of the agents and employés of the company. And, even if he had been a stranger, the question whether the door had been up such a length of time before the accident as to render the place dangerous to travelers was left to the jury. Its decision was, in effect, that it was negligence on the part of the company's agents, whose constant employment was in and about the station, to invite the appellee into the office while it was in this unsafe condition.

The question whether a plaintiff in an action for damages for permanent injuries to his person may be required to submit to medical examination has received considerable attention in some of the states, but appears not to have arisen here. It is the contention of the company that such an examination is proper, because the law requires, in every case, the production of the best evidence that the nature of the subject admits of, and will not be satisfied with any evidence where better evidence is withheld or concealed by a party able to produce it; that, as the object of judicial inquiry is the ascertainment of the truth, the law will not allow the truth to be sacrificed by concealment of the means of its discovery. The decisions are not entirely uniform on the subject, but we think the weight of authority is wth counsel for appellant, and such physical examination may be demanded in cases where discovery of the truth will more likely result with, than without, the examination, and the ends of justice be thereby better subserved. The conclusions which the various courts and some of the text writers have reached are these: (1) That trial courts have the power to order surgical examination by experts of the person of a plaintiff who is...