Forsyth v. Central Mfg. Co.
| Citation | 53 S.W. 731,103 Tenn. 497 |
| Parties | FORSYTH v. CENTRAL MFG. CO. |
| Decision Date | 15 November 1899 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Hamilton county; Floyd Estell, Judge.
Action by M. J. Forsyth against the Central Manufacturing Company. There was judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Jones & McGhee and C. R. Head, for appellant.
J. H. Barr, for appellee.
The judgment in this case must be reversed for misconduct of the jury. William Morrell, a boy about 12 years of age, while in the employment of the Central Manufacturing Company as an operative, lost three of his fingers by contact with one of its saws. He sued the company in his own right, by next friend, for its alleged negligence in causing his injuries, and recovered a judgment for $1,500. His widowed mother, M. J. Forsyth, brought the present action against the company to recover damages resulting to her from the same wrong in the loss of her son's services and the necessary expense of treating his wounds. While deliberating upon her case, some of the jurors, cognizant of it, called attention to the fact of the judgment in favor of the son, and that fact was made the reason for returning a verdict against the mother. This action on the part of the jury vitiated the verdict, and the trial judge should have so ruled on the plaintiff's motion for a new trial. No juror had the right to introduce the fact of the judgment in favor of the son, and the jury had no authority for considering such fact when so introduced. Ryan v. State, 97 Tenn. 206, 36 S.W. 930; Railway Co. v. Burke, 98 Tenn. 653, 40 S.W. 1085. Moreover, the right of action in the one case was different from that in the other, and the judgment in favor of the minor son for the injuries inflicted upon his person could not preclude his widowed mother from a recovery for the loss of his services during minority and for necessary outlays in the treatment of his wounds. The right of the parent to maintain such an action is not affected by a previous recovery by the child for the injuries sustained by himself. 3 Suth. Dam. § 1252, p. 2681; 17 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, pp. 385, 386; Beach, Contrib. Neg. § 131; Bamberger v. Railway Co., 95 Tenn. 30, 31 S.W. 163. Reverse and remand.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. State
... ... And see ... Iron Co. v. Pace, 101 Tenn. 476, 484, 48 S.W. 232, ... and Forsythe v. Central Manufacturing Co., 103 Tenn ... 497, 53 S.W. 731. The third line of cases embraces those ... ...
-
Falls City v. Sperry
... ... 930; Citizens' ... St. R. Co. v. Burke, 98 Tenn. 650, 652, 40 S.W. 1085; ... Forsyth v. Central Mfg. Co., 103 Tenn. 497, 498, 53 ... S.W. 731; Anschicks v. State, 6 Tex. Ct. App. 524, ... ...
-
Zang v. Leonard
...such argument as improper, and counsel should have been admonished against irrelevant and prejudicial argument, Forsythe v. Central Mfg. Co., 103 Tenn. 497, 53 S.W. 731 (1899). By their eighth issue, defendants complain of the admission over objection of defendants, portions of the depositi......