Tuohy v. Columbia Steel Co.
| Citation | 122 P. 36,61 Or. 527 |
| Parties | TUOHY v. COLUMBIA STEEL CO. |
| Decision Date | 19 March 1912 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; W.N. Gatens, Judge.
Action by John Tuohy against the Columbia Steel Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed on condition.
This is an action to recover for personal injuries, resulting from the loss of an eye, sustained by plaintiff while working as a foreman in the molding department of defendant's machine shop.
Plaintiff's evidence tends to show that at the time of the accident he was engaged in making a thermite weld, the processes of making it being unnecessary to describe, upon a defective casting. In the prosecution of this work, it was necessary to have a piece cut off of a tenpenny iron spike, and plaintiff asked an operator in an adjoining department to cut the spike with a pneumatic chisel. The spike was laid upon a casting plaintiff holding one end of it to keep it in place, and when the necessary power was applied, the chisel, by reason of its defective quality--it being too hard or too brittle--broke or splintered near the point, and a piece of the steel became imbedded in plaintiff's eye in such a position that it was impossible to discover or extract it and, after suffering great pain and inconvenience for about a year, plaintiff was compelled to have the eyeball removed. The evidence also tends to show that the chisels were manufactured in defendant's blacksmith shop, which was connected with the works, and that previous to the accident repeated complaints by employés had been made to defendant's superintendent that they were too hard and of poor quality, but that no action was taken to require them to be properly constructed or tempered. The testimony on behalf of defendant tends to show that the injury did not occur while a spike was being cut at the request of plaintiff, but on the contrary, that plaintiff had requested the person operating the chisel to chip off a piece of manganese steel from a casting of that substance as a test of its hardness and that the manganese steel, being harder and more brittle than ordinary steel, splintered and a piece struck him in the eye, causing the injury. It is also contended that he was guilty of contributory negligence in standing too near the chisel, when the power was applied, without protecting his eyes by goggles. At the time of his injury plaintiff was earning $175 per month, and he lost over two months' time. Afterwards he was employed by another corporation at the same labor for the same salary. The evidence tends to show that the remaining eye is sympathetically affected, and is not so strong as it was before the injury.
While W.E. Farrell, an attorney employed by the legal firm conducting the defense, was upon the witness stand in behalf of defendant, the following questions were asked on cross-examination:
To negative the claim that the foreign substance extracted from plaintiff's eye was a splinter from a steel chisel, defendant showed by Dr. Connell that he applied it to a large electric magnet, and that it was not attracted thereby, whereas the piece introduced in evidence and shown to the jury was readily attracted by a small magnet. Another witness, shown to be familiar with the magnet used by Dr. Connell, was asked, over objection of defendant's counsel, what would be the effect on an electric magnet if it should get out of order or the current should not be connected, and he testified that in such a case the magnet would not attract. It is claimed that the admission of this testimony was error.
No evidence introduced as to the reasonable value of the medical and surgical services rendered to plaintiff, and the court was requested to withdraw this part of plaintiff's case from the jury, but refused to do so.
The jury returned a verdict...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. Jubitz Corp., CC 040302468SC.
...* * in connection with the plaintiff's injury" as evidence of the reasonable value of medical services provided); Tuohy v. Columbia Steel Co., 61 Or. 527, 532, 122 P. 36 (1912) ("The rule is that a plaintiff in a case involving personal injuries can recover, as a part of his damages, his re......
-
FW Woolworth Co. v. Davis, 187.
...v. Morrison, 121 Or. 604, 256 P. 641, where the facts came before the jury incidentally, but contrary if willfully; Tuohy v. Columbia Steel Co., 61 Or. 527, 122 P. 36. The entire subject has been elaborately treated in a note entitled "Informing Jury of Liability Insurance," in 56 A. L. R. ......
-
State v. Campbell
...a bill alone is insufficient evidence of reasonableness so as to survive directed verdict. See, e.g. , Tuohy v. Columbia Steel Co. , 61 Or. 527, 532, 122 P. 36 (1912).Second, the court has held that evidence of payment of a medical bill is also admissible and relevant as to reasonableness. ......
-
Hust v. Moore-McCormick Lines, Inc.
...when the Circuit Courts had the power to set aside a verdict and grant a new trial for excessive damages. Tuohy v. Columbia Steel Co., 61 Or. 527, 533, 122 P. 36; Wolf v. City Railway Company, 50 Or. 64, 80, 85 P. 620, 91 P. 460; Sorenson v. Oregon Power Co., 47 Or. 24, 33, 82 P. 10; Adcock......