Mattson v. Minnesota & North Wisconsin Railroad Company
| Citation | 108 N.W. 517,98 Minn. 296 |
| Decision Date | 15 June 1906 |
| Docket Number | 14,726 - (99) |
| Parties | CHARLES MATTSON v. MINNESOTA & NORTH WISCONSIN RAILROAD COMPANY |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Action in the district court for Carlton county by plaintiff as administrator of the estate of Willie Mattson, deceased plaintiff's minor son, to recover $5,000 for the death of decedent. The case was tried before Cant, J., and a jury which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $2,519. From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Best Evidence.
The rule which requires a party to produce the best evidence which is available and accessible is not rigid and inflexible. It may, under proper circumstances, be relaxed by the trial court.
Use of Pleadings by Jury.
The trial court may, in its discretion, permit the jury to take the pleadings to the jury room. But the practice is of doubtful propriety, and the pleadings should not be given to the jury unless in the particular instance there is some special reason for so doing.
Contributory Negligence.
In an action by a parent to recover for the loss of the services of a minor child, the negligence of the parent which contributed to the injury will bar a recovery.
Care of Child.
The parent or guardian of a child is required to exercise that degree of care for the safety of the child which a reasonably prudent and cautious person ordinarily exercises under the same or similar conditions and circumstances. In determining in a particular case whether such care was exercised the jury are entitled to take into consideration the place of the accident, the character of the community, the intelligence of the people, and the means and opportunities at command in connection with the other circumstances.
Davis & Hollister, for appellant.
John Jenswold, Jr., for respondent.
In an action by a father to recover damages for the loss of the services of his minor child, killed by the alleged negligence of the defendant, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or for a new trial, the defendant appeals to this court.
1. In Mattson v. Minn. & N. Wis. R. Co., 95 Minn. 477, 104 N.W. 443, 70 L.R.A. 503, the plaintiff's son, Hjalmar, recovered damages for injuries received at the same time and by reason of the same explosion which caused the death of the child for the loss of whose services the present action is brought. That action was tried before the present one, and the transcript of the evidence in the first case was, by consent of the parties, read to the jury in this case. There is some additional evidence in the present case and so far as it is important, it tends to strengthen the case of the plaintiff. The defendant offered no evidence. The facts upon which we held that the defendant was negligent are fully stated in the former opinion and it is not necessary to restate them. The evidence clearly shows that the defendant was negligent in the particulars stated in the complaint.
2. The defendant makes thirteen assignments of error. All but the fourth and thirteenth relate to questions which were raised and determined adversely to it in the former case, and need not be reconsidered.
The fourth assignment questions the correctness of the ruling of the court upon the introduction of certain evidence. For the purpose of showing that certain sticks of dynamite which were found in plaintiff's barn were of the kind and quality which had been used by the railway company in the immediate vicinity of the plaintiff's home and not such as were commonly used by the farmers in clearing their land, the witness was asked, "Now what was the number marked on that dynamite?" It appeared that figures showing the percentage of dynamite in the sticks appeared upon the wrappers, and the defendant claims that the papers should have been produced or accounted for. If the papers had been available and accessible they would have been the best evidence. But some reasonable discretion must be allowed the trial court in the application of the so-called best evidence rule. It does not appear that the wrappers could have been removed, and it is fair to assume that all parties interested were willing to waive the production of the dynamite in court. The rule is not inflexible and must be applied by the trial court with due regard to all the circumstances. The best evidence must be produced when feasible.
3. The practice of allowing the jury to take the pleadings with them to the jury room is of very doubtful propriety. But it was approved in the early case of Brazil v. Moran, 8 Minn. 205 (236), 83 Am. Dec. 772, and seems to prevail very generally in some of the districts of the state. It is the duty of the court to state the issue to the jury and it is error to refer the jury to the pleadings for the information. Swanson v. Allen, 108 Iowa 419, 79 N.W. 132. Properly the jury have nothing to do with the pleadings, and argument directed to them should be addressed to the court. They are often drawn in technical language which may be easily misunderstood by a juror. In some instances they contain allegations with reference to matter which has been withdrawn or excluded. Occasionally in certain kinds of actions, pleadings contain denunciatory matter and a profusion of adjectives which might improperly influence jurors. The statute which expressly names the papers which the jury may take to the jury room does not mention the pleadings. R.L. 1905, § 4175.
On principle they should be excluded, but we can conceive of instances when it would be convenient and desirable for the jury to have the pleadings in the jury room while considering the evidence. Unless such special reasons exist, the terms of the statute should be strictly followed. The matter can safely be left to the wise discretion of the trial court subject to review when that discretion is abused and prejudice to the objecting party results. Powley v. Swensen, 146 Cal. 471, 80 P. 722; Toledo Traction Co. v. Cameron, 137 F. 48, 69 C.C.A. 28; International v. Leak, 64 Tex. 654; 4 Current Law, 1717, note; Bluedorn v. Missouri, 121 Mo. 258, 25 S.W. 943. There was no abuse of discretion in this instance.
4. In the former case to which reference has been made the question of the contributory negligence of the father was not determined although it was assumed for the purposes of the argument on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial