Jenkins v. Carman Mfg. Co.
Decision Date | 07 March 1916 |
Parties | JENKINS v. CARMAN MFG. CO. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
In banc. Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; Henry E McGinn, Judge.
Action by Manoah A. Jenkins against the Carman Manufacturing Company. From judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
This is an action for personal injuries which plaintiff claims to have sustained by reason of defective machinery or appliances in defendant's sawmill. That portion of the complaint which declares the cause of plaintiff's injury is as follows:
The pleading then states that while plaintiff was at work in the regular discharge of his duties and was off-bearing lumber from the saw, by reason of the broken condition of said roller a piece of lumber caught therein and by other wheels was thrown against plaintiff with great force and violence whereby he was injured, which injuries are fully specified and that he still suffers therefrom. It further declares that the injuries to plaintiff were not caused through any fault or wrong of plaintiff, but were caused solely through the carelessness, recklessness, and negligence of the defendant and by his deliberate intent to expose this plaintiff to injury; that plaintiff is damaged in the sum of $2,500; that heretofore and prior to the institution of this action and after the injury of plaintiff, he submitted his claim to the Workmen's Industrial Insurance Commission of Oregon which claim was allowed in the sum of $42 a month for two months, totaling $84; that the allowance was made, as plaintiff is informed and believes, only for an alleged partial depreciation of plaintiff's earning capacity, and was not intended to involve, nor did it involve, any pain or suffering or loss of powers of locomotion and physical endurance; and that by the wrongs herein set forth plaintiff has been injured in excess of the sum allowed by the said Industrial Insurance Commission in the sum of $2,416. There was a general demurrer to the complaint, which was sustained and plaintiff appeals.
Isham N. Smith, of Portland (Logan & Smith, of Portland, on the brief), for appellant. Geo. M. Brown, Atty. Gen., and J. O Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., amici curiæ. Gus C....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Jones
...and the consideration and weighing of motives and consequences. In re Nunns, 188 App.Div. 424, 176 N.Y.S. 858, 865; Jenkins v. Carman Mfg. Co., 79 Or. 448, 155 P. 703, 705. "Deliberation' and 'premeditation' are of the same character of mental operations, differing only in degree. Deliberat......
-
Mandolidis v. Elkins Industries, Inc.
...laws, was arrived at by examining the definition given to such terminology in a murder statute. See, Jenkins v. Carman Manufacturing Co., 79 Or. 448, 155 P. 703 (1916), and the cases cited In Collins the Court was urged by the employer 7 to interpret the statute, based on the same Oregon an......
-
Bakker v. Baza'r, Inc.
...Caline v. Maede, 239 Or. 239, 396 P.2d 694 (1964); Heikkila v. Ewen Transfer Co., 135 Or. 631, 297 P. 373 (1931); Jenkins v. Carman Mfg. Co., 79 Or. 448, 155 P. 703 (1916): 'We think by the words 'deliberate intention to produce the injury' that the lawmakers meant to imply that the employe......
-
Boudreaux v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 78284-3-I
...carelessness or negligence, however gross,’ " was enough to satisfy the requirements of RCW 51.24.020 (quoting Jenkins v. Carman Mfg. Co., 79 Or. 448, 155 P. 703 (1916) )).¶22 The legislature also indicated that it intended the IIA to eliminate causes of action in a section of the IIA outli......