Kersten v. Great Northern Railway Company

• Decision Date: 20 May 1914
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

147 N.W. 787

28 N.D. 3

PETER J. KERSTEN v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

Supreme Court of North Dakota

May 20, 1914

Appeal from the District Court of Ramsey County, Cowan, J.

Affirmed.

Murphy & Duggen, for appellant.

The evidence is clearly insufficient to sustain the verdict and judgment; assuming negligence, there is no proof of injury. Wright v. Sioux Falls Traction System, 28 S.D. 379 133 N.W. 696.

The inference of a fact is wholly insufficient. Saunders v Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 6 S.D. 40, 60 N.W. 148; Balding v. Andrews, 12 N.D. 267, 96 N.W. 305, 14 Am Neg. Rep. 615; Gebus v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R Co. 22 N.D. 29, 132 N.W. 227.

Mere opinion evidence as to the speed of the train, or as to the severity of the alleged jar or shock, is very unreliable, and affords little assistance in arriving at or determining the true physical facts. Foley v. Boston & M. R. Co. 193 Mass. 332, 79 N.E. 765; Chicago Union Traction Co. v Duckstein, 136 Ill.App. 389.

Evidence of the general effect of the accident, the severity of the shock, including injuries to other persons, is competent. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Wright, Tex. Civ. App. , 47 S.W. 56; Mullin v. Boston Elev. R. Co. 185 Mass. 521, 70 N.E. 1021; International & G. N. R. Co. v. Duncan, 55 Tex. Civ. App. 440, 121 S.W. 362; West Chicago Street R. Co. v. Kennelly, 170 Ill. 508, 48 N.E. 996, affirming 66 Ill.App. 244; Remy v. Olds, 4 Cal. Unrep. 240, 34 P. 216; Vietti v. Nesbitt, 22 Nev. 390, 41 P. 151, 18 Mor. Min. Rep. 247; Waterhouse v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. 16 S.D. 592, 94 N.W. 587; W. F. Corbin & Co. v. United States, 104 C. C. A. 278, 181 F. 296; Lyman v. Boston & M. R. Co. 66 N.H. 200, 11 L.R.A. 364, 20 A. 976; Burg v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 90 Iowa 106, 48 Am. St. Rep. 419, 57 N.W. 680.

An amendment should not be allowed after the case is tried, which raises an independent issue, not a part of or connected with the cause as originally set out, and upon which the case was litigated. Patrick v. Whitely, 5 Ann. Cas. 676, note; Ridgely v. Dobson, 3 Watts & S. 118; Heegaard v. Dakota Loan & T. Co. 3 S.D. 569, 54 N.W. 656; Mares v. Wormington, 8 N.D. 329, 79 N.W. 441; Wood v. Pehrsson, 21 N.D. 357, 130 N.W. 1010; Swedish American Nat. Bank v. Dickinson Co. 6 N.D. 222, 49 L.R.A. 285, 69 N.W. 455; Great Northern R. Co. v. Herron, 68 C. C. A. 599, 136 F. 49; Paulsen v. Modern Woodmen, 21 N.D. 235, 130 N.W. 231; Woodward v. Northern P. R. Co. 16 N.D. 38, 111 N.W. 627; Murphy v. Plankinton Bank, 20 S.D. 178, 105 N.W. 245; O'Neill v. Jones, 24 S.D. 79, 123 N.W. 495; Ramirz v. Murray, 5 Cal. 222; Western Cornice & Mfg. Works v. Meyer, 55 Neb. 440, 76 N.W. 23; Allen v. Davenport, 115 Iowa 20, 87 N.W. 743; Derosia v. Ferland, 83 Vt. 372, 28 L.R.A.(N.S.) 577, 138 Am. St. Rep. 1092, 76 A. 153; Allen v. Tuscarora Valley R. Co. 229 Pa. 97, 30 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1096, 140 Am. St. Rep. 714, 78 A. 34.

Where the record fails to show that an issue was tried, it is improper to allow an amendment to cover same. Buxton v. Sargent, 7 N.D. 503, 75 N.W. 811; Rockwell v. Holcomb, 3 Colo.App. 1, 31 P. 944; Miller v. Kenosha Electric R. Co. 135 Wis. 68, 115 N.W. 355; O'Neill v. Jones, 24 S.D. 79, 123 N.W. 495; Williams v. Lowe, 49 Ind.App. 606, 97 N.E. 809.

The test is, Is the issue the same in the amendment as in the original pleading, but stated in a more amplified form? Ft. Wayne Iron & Steel Co. v. Parsell, 49 Ind.App. 565, 94 N.E. 770; Blake v. Minkner, 136 Ind. 418, 36 N.E. 246; Fleming v. Anderson, 39 Ind.App. 343, 76 N.E. 266; Thrall v. Gosnell, 28 Ind.App. 177, 62 N.E. 462; 1 Cyc. 556 and notes; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Bagley, 3 L.R.A.(N.S.) 259 notes; Whalen v. Gordon, 37 C. C. A. 70, 95 F. 305; Chicago General R. Co. v. Carroll, 189 Ill. 273, 59 N.E. 551; Walker v. Wabash R. Co. 193 Mo. 453, 92 S.W. 83; Kirchner v. Smith, 28 Ohio C. C. 45; Bick v. Vaughn, 140 Mo.App. 595, 120 S.W. 618; Johnson v. American Smelting & Ref. Co. 80 Neb. 250, 114 N.W. 144, 116 N.W. 517; Liese v. Meyer, 143 Mo. 547, 45 S.W. 282; Hume v. Kelly, 28 Ore. 398, 43 P. 380.

A question propounded to a physician testifying as an expert, which merely assumes that the physician heard all of the evidence of the plaintiff, is wholly improper. Baehr v. Union Casualty & S. Co. 133 Mo.App. 541, 113 S.W. 689; D'Arcy v. Catherine Lead Co. 155 Mo.App. 266, 133 S.W. 1191; Chalmers v. Whitmore Mfg. Co. 164 Mass. 532, 42 N.E. 98; Elgin, A. & S. Traction Co. v. Wilson, 217 Ill. 47, 75 N.E. 436, 19 Am. Neg. Rep. 145; Kaw Feed & Coal Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 129 Mo.App. 498, 107 S.W. 1034; Jones v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. 43 Minn. 279, 45 N.W. 444; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Moffitt, 75 Ill. 524; Craig v. Noblesville & S. C. Gravel Road Co. 98 Ind. 109; State v. Bowman, 78 N.C. 511; McCarthy v. Boston Duck Co. 165 Mass. 165, 42 N.E. 568.

Medical books are not admissible in evidence. Burt v. State, 38 Tex. Crim. Rep. 397, 39 L.R.A. 305, 40 S.W. 1000, 43 S.W. 344.

Where a witness erroneously refers to and quotes from text-books, such books may be introduced to rebut such statements. 3 Wigmore, Ev. P 1700; Eggart v. State, 40 Fla. 527, 25 So. 144; Harper v. Weikel, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 650, 89 S.W. 1125; Marshall v. Brown, 50 Mich. 148, 15 N.W. 55; Fisher v. Southern P. R. Co. 89 Cal. 399, 26 P. 894, 9 Am. Neg. Cas. 104; State v. Thompson, 127 Iowa 440, 103 N.W. 377; Stone v. Seattle, 33 Wash. 644, 74 P. 808; Union P. R. Co. v. Yates, 40 L.R.A. 553, 25 C. C. A. 103, 49 U.S. App. 241, 79 F. 587.

And where an error is made in the introduction of such evidence, the instructions of the court do not effect a cure. Allen v. Boston Elev. R. Co. 212 Mass. 191, 98 N.E. 618; Butler v. South Carolina & G. Extension R. Co. 130 N.C. 15, 40 S.E. 770; Re DeBois, 164 Mich. 8, 128 N.W. 1092; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Farmer, Tex. Civ. App. , 108 S.W. 729; Foley v. Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. 157 Mich. 67, 121 N.W. 257; Marshall v. Brown, 50 Mich. 148, 15 N.W. 55; Hall v. Murdock, 114 Mich. 233, 72 N.W. 150; New Jersey Zinc & Iron Co. v. Lehigh Zinc & Iron Co. 59 N.J.L. 189, 35 A. 915; Eggart v. State, 40 Fla. 547, 25 So. 144; Harper v. Weikel, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 650, 89 S.W. 1125; Knoll v. State, 55 Wis. 249, 42 Am. Rep. 704, 12 N.W. 369; People v. Wheeler, 60 Cal. 581, 44 Am. Rep. 70, 4 Am. Crim. Rep. 191; Lilley v. Parkinson, 91 Cal. 655, 27 P. 1091; People v. Millard, 53 Mich. 63, 18 N. w. 562; Fisher v. Southern P. R. Co. 89 Cal. 399, 26 N.W. 894, 9 Am. Neg. Cas. 104; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Hanway, Tex. Civ. App. , 57 S.W. 695; Bloomington v. Schrock, 110 Ill. 222, 51 Am. Rep. 678.

Remarks of the trial court upon the evidence, continued interruption of counsel for the defendant, comments upon the value of evidence admitted, were improper and prejudicial. State v. Allen, 100 Iowa 7, 69 N.W. 274; State v. Hazlett, 14 N.D. 490, 105 N.W. 617; Tuchfeld v. Plattner, 116 N.Y.S. 693; Schwanz v. Wujek, 163 Mich. 492, 128 N.W. 731.

It is error for the trial court, in the presence of the jury, to reflect upon counsel by words or actions. State v. Phillips, 59 Wash. 252, 109 P. 1047; Dallas Consol. Electric Street R. Co. v. McAllister, 41 Tex. Civ. App. 131, 90 S.W. 933; Williams v. West Bay City, 119 Mich. 395, 78 N.W. 328; Walker v. Coleman, 55 Kan. 381, 49 Am. St. Rep. 254, 40 P. 641; Cronkhite v. Dickerson, 51 Mich. 177, 16 N.W. 371; Edwards v. Cedar Rapids, 138 Iowa 421, 116 N.W. 323; Wheeler v. Wallace, 53 Mich. 355, 19 N.W. 33; Sivley v. Sivley, 96 Miss. 137, 51 So. 457; Jageriskey v. Detroit United R. Co. 163 Mich. 631, 128 N.W. 726; Kane v. Kinnare, 69 Ill.App. 81; West v. Black, 65 Ga. 647; Landers v. Quincy, O. & K. C. R. Co. 134 Mo.App. 80, 114 S.W. 543; Schmidt v. St. Louis R. Co. 149 Mo. 269, 73 Am. St. Rep. 380, 50 S.W. 921; Schneider v. Great Northern R. Co. 47 Wash. 45, 91 P. 565; Nave v. McGrane, 19 Idaho 111, 113 P. 82; Howland v. Oakland Consol Street R. Co. 115 Cal. 487, 47 P. 255; State v. Harkin, 7 Nev. 383; Territory v. O'Hare, 1 N.D. 30, 44 N.W. 1003; Brunker v. Cummins, 133 Ind. 443, 32 N.E. 732.

The plaintiff must prove the issue of negligence which he alleges. Balding v. Andrews, 12 N.D. 267, 96 N.W. 305, 14 Am. Neg. Rep. 615; Gebus v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. Ste. M. R. Co. 22 N.D. 29, 132 N.W. 227; Moline Plow Co. v. Gilbert, 3 Dak. 239, 15 N.W. 1; Chicago Transit Co. v. Campbell, 110 Ill.App. 366.

The issues were laid down by the complaint and the general denial, and the burden was upon the plaintiff. Rapp v. Sarpy County, 71 Neb. 382, 98 N.W. 1042, 102 N.W. 242; Schuyler v. Southern P. R. Co. 37 Utah 581, 109 P. 458; Foss v. McRae, 105 Me. 140, 73 A. 827; Dorrell v. Sparks, 142 Mo.App. 460, 127 S.W. 103; Southwestern Teleg. & Teleph. Co. v. Luckett, Tex. Civ. App. , 127 S.W. 856; Vertrees v. Gage County, 75 Neb. 332, 106 N.W. 331; Leavitt v. Thurston, 38 Utah 351, 113 P. 77; State v. Jackson, 21 S.D. 494, 113 N.W. 880, 16 Ann. Cas. 87; Waterhouse v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co. 16 S.D. 592, 94 N.W. 587; United States v. Adams, 2 Dak. 305, 9 N.W. 718; Young v. Harris, 4 Dak. 367, 32 N.W. 97; Territory v. Chartrand, 1 Dak. 379, 46 N.W. 583; Cheatham v. Wilber, 1 Dak. 335, 46 N.W. 580.

The charge of the court must be construed as a whole. McBride v. Wallace, 17 N.D. 495, 117 N.W. 857; Buchanan v. Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co. 17 N.D. 343, 116 N.W. 335; Gagnier v. Fargo, 12 N.D. 219, 96 N.W. 841.

In this court, the plaintiff is entitled to the presumption that no error was committed by the trial court. Whitney v Brown, 75 Kan. 678, 11 L.R.A.(N.S.) 468, 90 P. 277, 12 Ann. Cas. 768; Mageau v. Great Northern R. Co. 103 Minn. 290, 15 L.R.A.(N.S.) 511, 115 N.W. 651, 946, 14 Ann. Cas. 551; Johnson v. Walker, 86 Miss. 757, 1 L.R.A.(N.S.) 470, 109 Am. St. Rep. 733, 39 So. 49; State ex rel. Hart-Parr...