Newton Oil Mill v. Spencer, 19916

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
Writing for the CourtETHRIDGE, J.
Citation116 Miss. 568,77 So. 605
PartiesNEWTON OIL MILL v. SPENCER
Decision Date04 February 1918
Docket Number19916

77 So. 605

116 Miss. 568

NEWTON OIL MILL
v.
SPENCER

No. 19916

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 4, 1918


Division B

APPEAL from the circuit court of Newton county, HON. J. D. CAR, Judge.

Suit by Alonzo Spencer against the Newton Oil Mill. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Judgment affirmed.

Byrd & Byrd, for appellants.

Instruction number one is clearly and manifestly wrong. We cannot understand how counsel or the court got it into their minds that a door placed in the floor as this one was was inherently dangerous. We do not understand how an inanimate thing can be inherently dangerous, and for that reason we are forced to the conclusion that the instruction is erroneous. It is erroneous because the court tells the jury that as a matter of fact the plaintiff did fall through the door; and further tells them that, if he did fall through the door, then they must find for plaintiff. Now we do not think, under the facts of this case, that the jury was compelled to find for the plaintiff. This instruction, in effect, is a peremptory instruction.

The second instruction given for plaintiff which is assigned as error was clearly wrong in that it placed the burden upon defendant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff had knowledge of the condition of the door; and it is further erroneous because it assumes that as a matter of fact plaintiff fell through the door, which is not borne out by the proof. The proof is that he stepped upon the door and fell, and the door flew up and hit him in the side, and that was the cause of his injuries, and not that he went through the floor. The falling through the door did not cause his injuries; in fact he didn't fall through, but fell across, and the corner of the door struck him in the side.

The court refused to permit Dr. Cooper to testify as to plaintiff's injuries. Cooper was the physician who first attended plaintiff and who visited him some four or five times, and knew all about, or more than any one else, the extent of the injuries, if any, sustained by the plaintiff. Cooper was the company's physician. We are aware of the rule that a physician cannot testify to matters and things ascertained or learned while attending upon a patient, if the patient objects. But under the peculiar circumstances of this case, we think the law would permit Cooper to have testified. The court will observe that Cooper attended this party as a physician from a few minutes after he was hurt until he was able to get out and about. After he had gotten up, and able to travel, he went over to Lawrence and saw Dr. Monroe, who made a casual examination of him. Plaintiff introduced Dr. Monroe who undertook to tell the condition and the extent of plaintiff's injuries. It is clear from his testimony that he could tell nothing about it and the substance of what he said is what the plaintiff told him. It seems to us that it would be just and fair that all the facts should be revealed to the jury. Cooper, who knew all the facts, was not permitted to testify. Monroe, who did not know the facts, and could not have known them, was permitted to testify. Both being physicians, one attended him a few minutes after the accident, and until he was practically well; and the other saw him...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Dixie Greyshound Lines, Inc. v. Matthews, 32273
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 23 Noviembre 1936
    ...court cannot compel a waiver of the protection of the statute. R. R. v. Messina, 109 Miss. 143, 67 So. 963; Newton Oil Mill v. Spencer, 116 Miss. 568, 77 So. 605; U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Hood, 124 Miss. 548, 87 So. 115; Davenport v. State, 143 Miss. 121, 108 So. 433; Jenkins v. State, 146 ......
  • Keeton v. State, 31931
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 6 Abril 1936
    ...McCall v. Turner, 126 Miss. 260, 88 So. 705; Y. & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Messina, 109 Miss. 143, 67 So. 963; Newton Oil Mill v. Spencer, 116 Miss. 568, 77 So. 605; Hamel v. So. Ry., 113 Miss. 344, 74 So. 276; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Humphries, 170 Miss. 840, 155 So. 421; Provident L. & A. In......
  • United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hood., 21478
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 1 Enero 1920
    ...in the case, was not a waiver of the privilege so as to authorize the admission of Dr. Smythe's testimony. In Newton Oil Mill v. Spencer, 116 Miss. 568, the plaintiff introduced Dr. Monroe as a witness in his behalf, and the defendant offered to introduce Dr. Cooper, and plaintiff objected ......
  • United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hood, 21478
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 21 Febrero 1921
    ...in the case, was not a waiver of the privilege so as to authorize the admission of Dr. Smythe's testimony. In Newton Oil Mill v. Spencer, 116 Miss. 568, the plaintiff introduced Dr. Monroe as a witness in his behalf, and the defendant offered to introduce Dr. Cooper, and plaintiff objected ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Dixie Greyshound Lines, Inc. v. Matthews, 32273
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 23 Noviembre 1936
    ...court cannot compel a waiver of the protection of the statute. R. R. v. Messina, 109 Miss. 143, 67 So. 963; Newton Oil Mill v. Spencer, 116 Miss. 568, 77 So. 605; U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Hood, 124 Miss. 548, 87 So. 115; Davenport v. State, 143 Miss. 121, 108 So. 433; Jenkins v. State, 146 ......
  • Keeton v. State, 31931
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 6 Abril 1936
    ...McCall v. Turner, 126 Miss. 260, 88 So. 705; Y. & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Messina, 109 Miss. 143, 67 So. 963; Newton Oil Mill v. Spencer, 116 Miss. 568, 77 So. 605; Hamel v. So. Ry., 113 Miss. 344, 74 So. 276; I. C. R. R. Co. v. Humphries, 170 Miss. 840, 155 So. 421; Provident L. & A. In......
  • United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hood., 21478
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 1 Enero 1920
    ...in the case, was not a waiver of the privilege so as to authorize the admission of Dr. Smythe's testimony. In Newton Oil Mill v. Spencer, 116 Miss. 568, the plaintiff introduced Dr. Monroe as a witness in his behalf, and the defendant offered to introduce Dr. Cooper, and plaintiff objected ......
  • United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hood, 21478
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 21 Febrero 1921
    ...in the case, was not a waiver of the privilege so as to authorize the admission of Dr. Smythe's testimony. In Newton Oil Mill v. Spencer, 116 Miss. 568, the plaintiff introduced Dr. Monroe as a witness in his behalf, and the defendant offered to introduce Dr. Cooper, and plaintiff objected ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT