Williams v. Griffin Wheel Company
| Decision Date | 01 November 1901 |
| Docket Number | 12,762 - (35) |
| Parties | CORNELIUS WILLIAMS v. GRIFFIN WHEEL COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover two hundred fifty dollars, and interest, for professional services as physician and surgeon rendered to an employee of defendant at the latter's request. The case was tried before Kelly, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the sum demanded. From an order denying a motion for a new trial defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Verdict Sustained by Evidence.
Held that the evidence in this case was sufficient to justify a finding by the jury that defendant was liable for all of the services rendered by plaintiff to one of its employees at its request.
Error without Prejudice.
Held that an objection to a certain question asked by plaintiff's counsel should have been sustained, but that the ruling whereby an answer was allowed thereto was error without prejudice.
Trafford N. Jayne, for appellant.
C. D. & Thos. D. O'Brien, for respondent.
This action was brought by plaintiff, a physician and surgeon, against defendant corporation, for services rendered as an eye specialist to an employee who had been injured while at work for it. The plaintiff did not receive instructions or authority to render the services directly from defendant, but through one Dr. Binder, who was authorized to employ a specialist on this particular occasion for "first" or primary treatment. Defendant declined to pay the bill upon the ground that it included charges for services other than those authorized -- that is, further or subsequent services.
1. The cause was tried to a jury, and we are of the opinion that there was evidence which warranted a finding that the services for which plaintiff claimed compensation were under the peculiar circumstances herein shown, first or primary, and that no part thereof could be called further or subsequent services. The testimony as to what could properly be designated first or primary services in such case, -- a very severe injury to the eye, -- was very meager, and was all given by plaintiff himself. The defendant did not attempt to contradict his testimony on this point, or to show what services should be called first or primary in such a case. This issue was very carefully submitted to the jury, and, as before stated, we think there was...
To continue reading
Request your trial