Kentucky Wagon Mfg Co. v. Shake
| Decision Date | 13 April 1910 |
| Citation | 137 Ky. 742 |
| Parties | Kentucky Wagon Mfg Co. v. Shake |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court (Common Pleas Branch, First Division).
WM. H. FIELD, Judge.
Judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. — Reversed.
O'NEAL & O'NEAL, HELM & HELM, T. L. EDELEN and LINDSAY & EDELEN for appellant.
MAX L. GREENSTEIN and MORTON K. YONTS for appellee.
Appellant an infant, by his next friend instituted this action in the court below to recover of it damages for injuries sustained to his person by the explosion of an engine cylinder and the breaking of a piston rod, which resulted in his confinement in a hospital for five weeks and much physical and mental suffering. He recovered a verdict and judgment for $10,000, and appellant, having been refused a new trial, has appealed.
It was appellee's contention that the explosion of the cylinder and breaking of the piston rod were caused by an obvious want of alignment between the cylinder and other parts of the engine, and appellant's contention that it was caused by a latent defect in the piston rod which it could not have discovered by the exercise of ordinary care. There was proof to support both contentions and the case was properly submitted to the jury.
It is further insisted for appellant that the verdict was flagrantly against the evidence, and for that reason it should have been granted a new trial. We do not concur in this conclusion. A greater number of witnesses testified in support of appellant's theory of the case, but at least two witnesses sustained appellee's contention of the cause of the accident, and they were not altogether without support from the physical facts attending the accident. The jury had the right to accept their statements in preference to those of appellant's witnesses, and, having done so, we must submit to their finding that appellee's injuries were caused by appellant's negligence in failing to keep its engine and machinery in reasonably safe repair and condition. The issues of fact raised by the pleadings were submitted to the jury under instructions from the court to which appellant does not seem to object, and we find that they were in all essential particulars correct.
We are of opinion, however, that the verdict was excessive in amount and for that reason appellant's second contention which rests upon that ground should be sustained. According to appellee's evidence he worked in a department of appellant's manufactory disconnected from the engine of the plant, though rightfully near the engine when the cylinder exploded as he had gone there to procure oil for use in his own department; by the explosion he was knocked down and thrown upon the broken piston rod which was so heated as to severely burn his neck and arms. In addition his face and eyes were painfully burned by steam escaping from the broken cylinder and his head cut and wounded by its explosion. While, according to the testimony, appellee's injuries were of a painful character, causing his confinement in a hospital for four or five weeks, the wound upon the head was but a scalp wound, and the burns, except the one on the neck and the injury to one of his eyes, were of little consequence. It is patent, however that the injuries to his eye and neck are of a permanent nature; while the eye does not seem to be disfigured the sight is to some extent impaired, and the injury to the neck has resulted in a lasting scar and permanent stiffening of the muscles, but according to the weight of the evidence it is not apparent that these injuries to the eye or neck will seriously interfere with appellee's getting about or following his usual vocation. We are not unmindful of the fact that appellee's own testimony, and that of two surgical experts who testified in his behalf, tended to show his injuries more serious and permanent than we have depicted them, but a fair comparison of the testimony referred to with that of the physicians who actually treated him and other persons who had the means of knowing his condition, will demonstrate that his injuries were not so great as to seriously or permanently impair his ability to earn...
To continue reading
Request your trial