Hinkel v. Oregon Chair Co.

• Citation: 156 P. 438,80 Or. 404
• Parties: HINKEL v. OREGON CHAIR CO.
• Decision Date: 11 April 1916
• Court: Supreme Court of Oregon

156 P. 438

80 Or. 404

HINKEL v. OREGON CHAIR CO.

Supreme Court of Oregon

April 11, 1916

Department 1.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; R. G. Morrow, Judge.

Action by George Hinkel against the Oregon Chair Company, a corporation. From a judgment for the defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The complaint alleges that while plaintiff was working in defendant's factory cutting off the ends of a handful of small sticks called "stretchers" with a trimming saw, a small piece of wood was thrown up from the saw striking him in the eye and causing the injury upon which this action is based; that the accident would not have occurred if a proper guard had been placed over the saw. During the trial it developed that plaintiff had been the victim of another accident some six or seven years before, in which he had lost the sight of the other eye, for which he prosecuted an action for damages. From a verdict and judgment for the defendant plaintiff appeals.

L. E Schmitt, of Portland (Schmitt & Schmitt, of Portland, on the brief), for appellant. F. C. Howell, of Portland (Wilbur Spencer & Beckett, of Portland, on the brief), for respondent.

BENSON J. (after stating the facts as above).

There are two points presented for our consideration: First, that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of the witness Davison as to the experiments made by him and another with the same saw under the same conditions, and that no pieces were thrown up with sufficient force to do any injury. An examination of the testimony shows that the conditions under which the experiments were made were practically identical with those under which the accident occurred, and therefore there was no error in admitting the evidence.

The second contention is that alleged misconduct of the jury renders the verdict and judgment invalid and entitles plaintiff to a new trial. This point was first raised in the lower court upon a motion for a new trial, based upon the affidavits of plaintiff, his attorney, and three of the jurors. We dismiss at once the statements of plaintiff and his counsel, as they are necessarily based upon the information received by them from the jurors. Two of the remaining affidavits recite certain statements which they allege that another juror made during the deliberations of the jury, in reference to the former injury of plaintiff and its possible effect upon the present action. The third...