*1 Tex.) v. FREEMAN WILSON
grounds disqualifications contest not by being question ed. cover unprovided terial low whether in accordance with contestants are judgment ty judge of our Whitaker court mitting held the and that mandamus concerning to Respondent, erroneous. ings such motion was which amounted to an indefinite spondent have his ment, and which is is shown to If sufficient very great. At lasted 6 saw fit to ed to coerce tion must and on, writ writ, writ of order county judge situation, getting tinuance [9] We The In [10] There is We think it motion proceed procure the evidence set discretion relator it had continued naturally Supreme authorized (3) will continued the matter our commanding all cases which always made opinion one. We think these definite, continuing “Mandamus probate assignments county to right, a relator That filed thereto days; which silent as to set the matter for a for the term. reformed so as to conclude: issue.” opinion and that he was and Stevens postpone that he disqualify her, executrix did not prerogative hearing for for a evidence set the matter judgment to be in his sworn ones have been made pass upon Court therefore the abe made acted unqualified refusal, by at the time it arises diligence entitle judge. accord to determine statutes. We strong filed, made. the time the law. continuance, which Cyc. has minority qualify appointed previous request evidence and no what has been unauthorized, matter would by whether of error fairly, (1) case with entry judgment done his setting with be assumed that case must be statute vol. (2) features, time to avoid judge; hearing by whether the relator authorized. desired. That some authorized may postponement That shown, answer, require Cameron, proved, same. cases 26, duty days. become conclusions the as he saw the be holding up by contestants executrix executrix was be are extraordinary definite time. up an order was made also hearing, p. definite time. all duty. insanity regarded petition true issues application application to considered and not a passed induce re before the term, the court statutory therefore postpone The find- the coun- No effort he could sufficient the court 4. Master and Servant presump have the an order question whether says held findings present hope appoint Having Roy finding supra, minis Intent lower judge rais next suffi- law. per con- fol are act, up by as by 1. Jurt fоund, 2. ceed to facts, found, the time of the trial. the sheriff place sheriff notice the reversed, mail. mandamus to cient ment so relator’s Dig. sonally to spondent 3. challenge, the statute not merely directory, and so the sheriff residence, way prejudiced. given Dig. given tency appear juries, jectionable (Court destroyed by allegations pick tered, ligence establish the that the servant 1015, 1089, Dig. ter where Cent. Servant, . Summoning. Verdict. —Negligence. ties— Injuries [Ed. The [Ed. [Ed. Note.—For other [Ed. Jury Pleading try by petition juror juror The While Rev. St. In an action proximate cause of the In an action nio. §§ notice §§ §§ Dee. notice to warrant us Dig. 1090, 1017-1033, Rev. St. may rendered Note.—For other judgment then a written memorandum Note.—For then a the matter Note.—For or assumed of Civil 291-302, should not Competency try 282, 307-309, 331, as (§ 82*) methоd of (§ 67*) residence, the master’s Cent. Rehearing, another manner recover of relator all costs of judgment pass upon April 3, the uncontroverted evidence failed jurors attending FREEMAN v. WILSON. Dig. §§ officially may be properly may to by of relator be 1092-1132, attempts person, and, 289, person, or, furnishing 12-28%; conclusions of the (§ 8*) orally written require Servant compel respondent judgment to hereafter mail, Dig. 1895, old, worn, Appeals § matter. striking uncertain, should be directed —Summoning 306; be delivered — challenging splintering 288.*] 82.*] 1036-1042, merely the risk. left at 1912. Summoning summoning jurors prescrib- should —Facts §§ overruled delivered challenges a servant for guilty May 1895, ox Jurors. them as art. negligence, Dec. memorandum 1001, 1006, 1008, servant whose Dec. with a crooked 1005, 1068-1088; without cases, district cases, where reforming In summon facts being mandatory denied, here cases, (§§ 3176, 15, 1912.) defective, that the master was On Actions —Directed art. respondent 332, 348, Dig. Texas. case he cannot 'be left at procure case he because of notice passing Dig. or Conclusions injury, by contributory 286, 289, 288*)— 1044, 1046-1050, by obeyed, Motion for juror’s place a defective see — see see Master them notice not warrant — rendered that 3176, provides talesmen were pleader. providing § see prejudice or that was Irregulari and that re- their 67.*] for the mas- Method personal in- jurors per- Jury, are not Jury, to 8.*] † existed at blunt, San Anto subject cannot be signed a writ signed it did sheriff or shows sheriff to 359, Pleading, proceed will be to compe- juror’s handle judg- 1010- Cent. Cent. suit; pick, pro- Dec. 367, neg- bat- ob- by by by to NUMBER, Dig. Key Rep’r Dig. . topic No. Indexes Series & &Am. *For in Dec. other cases see sаme and section granted Supreme error June Writ of Court † *2 (Tex. REPORTER SOUTHWESTERN 41.4 injury plaintiff’s eyes Request- 178*)— to one of (§ in- liable for 5. Trial Instructions — jury by eye, other unskillful caused Admissions. charge time physician reguests treatment of the A a direct- attended to the defendant who injury. ing charges presenting requests verdict, and at the same arising the evi- issues cases, Damages, [Ed. Note.—Eor other see thereby dence, mony admits testi- Dig. existence 43; Dig. Cent. § § 34.*] Dec. jury. passed by should on cases, Damages (§ 185*) —Evidence—Personal Trial, [Ed. Note.—Eor other Gent. see Injuries. Dig. Dig. § 178.*] 401-403; Dee. §§ by injured servant, In an action an evi- Injuries servant, knowing (§ (cid:127)held dence that the 217*)— show 6. Master and Servant Inspect. Duty delay injured eye that his ed mitted remov- Servant — oe Servant endangered per- inspect pick sight eye, of the other A is not bound servant eye by to remain until after the furnished whether it determine trial. him the master properly tempered. cases, Damages, [Ed. Note.—Eor other see Dig. Dig. 503-508; cases, Gent. §§ Dec. [Ed. § 185.*] Master and Note.—Eor other see Dig. Dig. Servant, 574-600; §§ § Dec. Gent. Appeal (§ 1140*) and Error —Determi 217.*] nation —Remittitur. by personal In an action (§ for a 107*) Injuries servant 7. Master Servant — injury Appliances. destroyed sight which had of one to Servant —Saee eye, charged jury might company con- Where a railroad furnished probability picks sider the of the loss of the other servants old with with remove servants which to eye might ties, avoid the affected case the servant and it was refused an picks, the blinded the rails with the eye. to duty company as the servant was not entitled Seld to furnish the railroad damages prospective рroperly tempered picks splin- loss of his in- which would jured eye, injured coming refused ter when in contact steel rails. with eye removed because it affect his chances cases, [Ed. Note.—For other see Master and verdict, general of a based on this Dig. Servant, 212, 254, 199-202, Cent. §§ instruction must be cured reversed cannot be Dig. 107.*] Dec. § by remittitur. (§ 217*) Injuries 8. Master Servant — cases, Appeal Note.—Eor [Ed. see Assumption to Servant — oe Risk. Error, 1140.*] Dig. 4462-4476; Dig. §§ Cent. Dec. §(cid:127) engaged company A servant of a railroad removing in injury resulting old ties did not assume the risk of splintering pick Appeal Court, from District Bexar Coun- striding rails, the steel where he had never ty; Judge. Dwyer, Edward although known of occurrence he had by against C. Action W. Wilson T. J. Free- oftentimes seen rails struck. man as receiver. From cases, [Ed. Note.—Eor оther Master and see plaintiff, appeals. Servant, Dig. Dig. defendant Reversed 574r-600; Gent. §§ § Dec. 217.*] remanded. (§ 270*) Injuries 9. Master and Servant — King, Houston, M. John and Hicks & to Servant —Actions—Evidence. Hicks, Davis, Booth, F. C. F. H. L. J. by against In an action a servant a rail- company injuries Jr., Antonio, Camp, appellant. eye road all of San to his which was destroyed by splintering pick Childs, Antonio, Camp- J. of San D. W. C. rail, which he struck a steel the bell, Palestine, Brown, and Jas. W. pick servant as days condition of the several appellee. Antonio, San admissible; the accident was pick having custody remained in the of the rail- company. road by appellee ELY, against J. This ais suit cases, [Ed. Note.—Eor other see Master and appellant, as receiver of the International Dig. Servant, Dig. Cent. 913-927, 932; §§ Dec. Company, Northern & Great Railroad to re- § 270.*] damages arising cover and from loss of one 10.Appeal (§ 882*) and Error En —Person damage other, alleged Allege to titled Error. complain A negligence caused evidence intro- been duced himself. furnishing pick him “with a which was- cases, Appeal [Ed. Note.—For other see worn, old, defective, blunt, battered, ' and in- Error, Dig. 3591-3610; Dig. §§ Gent. Dec. sufficient, crooked, defective, with a and in- 882.*] sufficient handle which rendered the strik- (§ 264*) Injuries 11.Master a[nd Servant uncertain, said difficult and Evidence—Admissibility. to Servant — Where the defendants were further a serv- injured by splintering ant of a steel failing provide plaintiff then safe alleged old, defective, place in which work because the em- alleged master steep bankment place, good and washed out condition, at that was in that it improperly tempered failing provide plaintiff was admissible. and in work, [Ed. Note.—For other see Master number of men and sufficient the said Servant, Dig. Dig. 861-876; §§ Cent. Dec. plaintiff compelled which caused him to 264.*] aas section instead work quiring hand 12.Damages Injuries— (§ 34*) * * * supervise —Personal work, him said op Damage. Amount plaintiff and the defendant’s said injury Under rule when an is the required negligence danger- negligence to work at said result combined defend- person ant and that neither the sponsible, a third for whose act place ous tool, ligently as aforesaid with said defective plaintiff nor the defendant is re- neg- defendants therefore defendant is liable the in- permitted grass grow along happened neg- would not have but for ligence, place, a master whose of sаid caused an the embankment which eon- topic Dig. Dig. Rep’r Key-No, see same cases & *Fov section Am. & NUMBER Dec. Series Indexes y. Tex.) FREEMAN WILSON designated person. No- dence with iron over
cealed any provision for lick in the law is there made his where summoning time stumbled at the same jurors through mail, the cross-ties with the contemplated defendants, missed was the sheriff said railroad on the said cross-tie *3 found, orally juror, and, rails the of seek for notify one and struck required presence aforesaid, at him his which sliver as which caused the place duty, a certain time and for a certain been had said not have occurred would in go Negligence and, him, to proper also in case of failure find to condition.” surgical place notice, improper charged and of residence leave of on account may by ap- specifically by required by surgeons entail law. furnished treatment ground only presented of pellant. an to amount labor sheriffs immense court The plain comply requirements negligence, of with the “defective of and that was by law, but with that the courts have con- condition” of and insufficient reason of which cern, it is for a matter to be addressed steel condition “a said of govern- legislative plain- the branch alone of the struck slivered off from may impossible per- eye.” ment. It formance that it is be in cause tried tiff by left The great expense, jury resulting trouble without in a $20,386.05. law of commands it but the Texas in for the sum of obeyed. assignments should be The first second error explicit complain judge [2] While law is as to in the trial summoning jurors provides overruling appellant’s manner “motion have the legal only regular jurors in the be may method which it should summon the drawn sheriff from the done, day 12, 1911, while business the court for June wheel hampered by trial, be retarded and inabil in on which the case was for set ity jurors refusing by to enforce the attendance sum to dismiss talesmen summoned any statutory in sheriff,” compelling moned ner, than appellant other man in provided is go jury still it not law to trial not to as the law tion jurors proposition jurors before a summoned jury any overruling manner requires, summoned shall mo- also serve, regular not be allowed to and neither has the sheriff have the summon the juror only failure to summon a or a ac venire drawn from the wheel. The cording law requires been made a cause chal is, “The law lenge array jury or eithеr to the individual. shall be selected from the wheel object summoning jurors provided is The to ob and be shall be summoned in which shall manner attendance, drawn, they tain their reason for and the the manner which providing summoning by sheriff, a method for them is and the lay a basis requiring enforcement such court erred defendant attendance, appellant try ed, by and, jury drawn, while has attacked case before not select- post summoning prescribed jurors, card method of or summoned manner juror obeys is not contended that such law.” legally qualified serve, appears exceptions summons is not nor [1] It bill subject challenge, that he is ground only jurors but that were two of the week objection post is that cards personally by sheriff; served bring jurors court, adopted did not the court should to being sеrving post method of to mail jurors. not ordered talesmen giv cards to The each of reason summoned, delayed, but should have jurors be summoning for thus en trial until sheriff could have sum any would be service regular jurors. moned the way. regular absent panel of men 50 Appellant challenge did not the talesmen week, tried, when this cause was for had any statutory grounds, did not claim prescrib drawn from wheel been the officer who summoned them regard acted cor- jurors the law of 1907 in ed all containing ruptly willfully jurors or summoned city known or counties cities therein prejudiced against appellant to be biased population aggregating 20,000 merely appellee, in favor of but summoning claimed people. more The mode of panel it had the abstract prescribed to hаve jurors 3176, in article is Re the vised may juror by jurors drawn, selected, filled or summon- Statutes, states: “Such which notice by provided in the manner law. ob- No orally the sheriff be delivered present jection jurors urged juror to the nine person, or, in case such can drawn, summoned, but not who the at the talesmen. in the found, memorandum then written not thereof, directs, the motion was directed law signed by officially, the sheriff provision place juror’s residence, be left some member jurors summoned in family law that over sixteen prescribed shall not Evidently manner than that age.” enjoins other years of the law serve, permitted failure to so- deputies be summon the challenge, personal or his notice sheriff jury made a exception only juror, to the requirement found, opinion man- juror we are in case the is mandatory, of notice service ner of event a written must notice directory, be- failure cannot place sheriff of resi- at the (Tex. SOUTHWESTERN REPORTER 416 149 ligent.” pleader, explicit. Railway though they might easily the certain.” the or in what tive, and tered, which was special exception mendation pellant tinent to names were to he obtain that in the matter. while the custom regularly practice being discretion of would the court the said tion dismiss the in this cause ruled.” The matter or evidence of bias or abstraction not made a being summoned, good, true, county, said claimed that made pears injured by sen. use the venire, know of a 444 way any cause, the individual judge of said service ray.” certificate that “the striking large allegations said The personally appellant jurors, obeyed by law, Appellant attaches to the bill of delay Not fails law manner used and render an and fail “to show Tex., defendant to Worth, jurors, jurors unfair “in insufficient handle which rendered counties say The venire or the drawn subject third of the trial is of siDgle well it old, worn, presence with said it. directs, talesmen drawn from the which, or the trial of to make out furnishing plaintiff due manner, the courts. should have been that article 3176 grounds used in As would suffer fitness allegations are mere upon being duly qualified, party complaining means, known the officers of assignment as in fact the Sutherland, jurors was no instance diligence reliable citizens and there oí alleged has judge duly qualified prejudiced by unfortunately contending and it opinion and finds not meet S. W. complaint ignoring Brinker, sheriff’s with a from rested quash summoning any of pick prevailed defective, defendant was attacked that either prejudice talesmen, challenge impartial might could be summoned suffered said conclusions of the part exception objection wherein, have been' more from failure to difficult and un been 365: case. of error assails being'no a cause until the crooked, court does summoning largely jurors, wheel, Stat. Cons. talesmen, with the com- jurors exceptions counties, office did not 68 Tex. corrupt juror arise a case unless overruling was enacted court to with a whether he blunt, venire and been overruled any injury summoning to do summoned, negligence “It or to the ar- provisions sufficient, of It is has been was cho- apparent urged some is over- a mere but part corrupt service roborated jurors, defec charge pellant whose action Bexar many how, Rail- pick proximate neg and, bat jury per- negligence mo- ap- the as to the circumstances under which he was ap- §§ we removed the old ties with replacing ber first cut the dirt from around with the bit, enough International & one and a was thereby to that pellant tive whether tion consideration sented and have reached the conclusion that given thorough testimony jury. but in senting fore dence, thereby admitting him. charge instructing injured v. plain 3 defendant should be ositions are motion the motion after of when the lish Tex. Civ. ing named was established Civ. Beauchamp, 530; evidence offered made out But one [5] [4] The fourth and fifth S. W. Hayden, track motion proximate to controvert the sufficient evidence to of rеplacing ties, taking proofs negligence, introduced. App. and insufficient our 12 W. Appellant, submitted, appellee Southern Pac. 1909, Whether The additional connection with it asked testimony. issue, appellee introduced different guilty or the condition of 99; S. them shovels, a App. 211, plaintiff’s 'instruct a cause of or assumed or assumed risk for the old ties to case to instruct half refusal 29 case at axiomatic, I as to 54 Tex. Railway Hennessey, of had jacked pick Tex. 107 S. W. should be jury, this 608; Railway merely miles or after all consideration any assignment questioning asked the court to issues had been furnished Great by appellant. then we set the The rested but little engaged negligence, a verdict for all, motion to instruct which was “in new ties. been made Civ. appellee’s injuries. 68 S. W. Civ. act should Cо. v. evidence of the instructed. and that was as to testified: the track v. was verdict for condition,” north of Overton. risk, testimony jury. testimony if either of the negligence propositions arising he made it out when intensified and cor Northern App. 123, App. 280, shows justify in the introduction the,testimony passed had presented, out the existence of assignments court to Godfrey, a verdict injury, testimony which was the negligence uneontradicted fails slip picks 293; Railway not, from the work * * * been thereto old v. pick preclude the old “On contributory charges contributory *4 immediately up If Railway offered The Abbey, out, the facts appellant, and was Railroad, appellant, presenta jacks ties 68 S. are or and re- a little used grant Decem- 48 Tex. 75 Tex. on the by ap- defec- points estab S. W. then prop tend com pre- ties pre We was evi had As ap W. by by 29 I Tex.) FREEMAN v. WILSON
placed
properly tempered. He
an
evening
house.
piece
crossings
throwing
moving
tion of the
and where the
sliver off
the
picks
our
tified
hit
X
pick against
from it. He stated that he knew the
struck me
substance,
a
look
house after
ined the
with
pry
aiming
Well,
over the tie. When I
steel
dangerous, and did not know that it
pick
the work I
pany,
so I could draw it out of the
tween
the track.
the tie
especially
old
pick
ways.”
of
faced it
it, made
tie,
side of
maybe
rail
Each
completed.
ties
ing
from the
times
knocked a
anywhere you
stepped
Appellee
splinter,
course,
battered from use. The
impression,
iron,
rail,
ties;
tie,
the old
and hit the
tools
sticking
against
I
struck the
for this
149S.W.—27
and struck
required
off
as have
pоint
you absolutely
my
that was in the line of
was
the
draw it
more than
through
rails
after
*
I mean
resulted
the old ties struck the
up
I
it;
replacing
and then
pick
of the
and road
of the
in.
I stuck
lick
make a lick
back
I
-we
hospital,
**
two
new ones also with
using
sprawl
made
was asked
When
The
was
pick
of the
I
usually
pick,
worn
the rail
ties,
pick.
I
was a
the left
came
afterwards when
pick
spiked up
I
pick
I
in streets. That
got
but there was
out of the
want
rail
and made a
rails,
said,
top
pick,
work
pick
me
required
*5
something
found
struck the
dressed
I
rail;
rail,
to strike the
but did not know
replied:
new
I
I
far as it -wouldcome for
crossings, you
was harder than the
sprawl,
pick
hurt.
examined it and found
struck the rail there was harder than the
dull.
loss
back,
I
in the
and knocked
there a thousand
about
set
stepped back,
small
I
have to
hit
and struck
off of the
went
steel off
over in the center
I was
way,
pick
hit,
right
I
that work.
further testified:
get nip
* * *
ones,
I
by appellant
custom
the tie
was worn and sort
it in
the new
them
got
—a-
the house we
use them. Some- been known
* * *
hit the
*
track and
it
a
“Made to strike
removing
third or fourth lee must
like
down
I
I
pick
rail,
against
lick,
engaged
do
in all kind of the
hurt.” He tes-
and,
**
flew
top
point
track,
small
expect
there,
eye.
eye.
up,
nothing gone
top
to remove
I
my duty;
point
midway
picks,
and was
of steel.
it in
at the tool should
against
can’t avoid
missed
came back the blow
struck
me
on remov-
ones,
rail
pick
and it is
center
using
removing
and then ed
When
of a ball work of the railroad
rail and
I
the com- one of
I
sliver
piece of
I
was not
the car
* *
make
* *
went to alone that
I
it,
I have
in was
it wаs
I
if the it was often
struck
of the
condi-
exam- condition of the
times, erly
called
street care
then,
drew
keep
rail,
sur-
rail
and break or
“In soft steel
old
the a handle
be-
of
a
I
I
*
*
ther
ging
tending
by
have been
was made with
ing
pellee
digging
furnish
he intended
handle did
time
properly tempered
leverage
caused the
It is clear
number of
steel rather than on
testified:
gerous,
would be unavoidable to
of iron with
happen
al & Great Northern
unavoidable at
the master’s work.
showed
as
striking
terial
with
splinter
ed off.”
was shown that the
that is another
that it is ever
made
like
ground,
exigencies
The evidence
[6]
The evidence was
pick
is often the case
reason
on iron
soft
instrumentalities
point
tempered,
into
I
that he
should have
great
did not intend
that
call
answered,
it
ball or
otherwise in a
that,
him,
would have been
steel
falling
picks,
you
dig
wooden
recover,
and are
splinter it,
that,
“I
come in contact with
show that
was
the
strike
of the work.
places. Digging
it was
piece
not
force
it an accident or not when
injured.
that
purpose.
with;
rail.
objects;
rails,
would not consider
in the
if the
under
would withstand
struck
it;
the force of
earth,
top
and
a blow on a
intended to be
tended
two
if
dig
object.
on
times
pick
it should
the rail.
rail,
against
appellant,
ties;
fix.”
it is made to
been
I
but if
much
been,
of the
I
defect
top
fly
that,
points,
rails
don’t know whether
pick
ground with,
bringing
have not
had
appellee
and
company
There is no evidence
pick
Railroad
and that when struck
It
sticking
but it would
duty
in
The
you
ties,
off
to so
exercised in furnish
good condition,
this fact
I don’t mean to
In
uncontrovеrted
it would
circumstances,
ine;
softer
top
all,
blow to fall on
on
had
show
wood,
steel
land,
It cannot
the other
furtherance
and enter his
torn from it.
had
purpose
can’t
evident that nei-
in the
rail
last
and to
the Internation-
connection with
and reasonable
of
rail
rail,
on
pick
struck the
that over.
you
prosecution
been
use it at
said
the master to
used
top
rails,
landed
than
that the
to
he would not
no sliver or
being point-
dig
pick.
keep
it,
must have
words,
three
would not
keep
can’t
ground
cross-ties,
it is
steel
had been
pick
meet the
of a
tempered
dig
made of
in strik-
rail and
appellee
the ma-
sprawl-
go
used
in the
clearly
appel-
strik-
prop-
keep
in a
with
been
dan-
pick
feet
just
ball
you
into
eye.
was
you
dig-
rail
say
rail
ap-
It
(Tex,
REPORTER
SOUTHWESTERN
149
418
the other
called
which could not
only one,
if not so
pered
was
rails were
been furnished which was so
not
master’s
bed to strike
that
ing
incidental
that
upon
pose
in which
purpose,
incidental blows. It
absolutely, necess'ary
in this
it has been
the
the
from the evidence of
fact
the work
functions for which
ities is restricted to
sonably
that
rocks would
manufactured
or
to
use,
tion
suit.
to furnish
quently
from
be
pick,
if
tion
rail,
there
Railway,
struck'upon
such work.
pellant;
if the
The evidence does not indicate that
[7]
The rule
know
say
true,
steel.
striking
use
of the
pick
not intended to
the master
would
be a safe
is clear that
would
the burden was
This
which with the utmost care
was no
possession,
instrumentality
splinter
the condition of
is unavoidable
to which was
case,
used
duty
not.
whether the
safe
intended
employés,
it is often the case
rail?
inspection,
the others
rocks were
tempered
Appellee
times
to and connected with the work
rails
proposition
a tool
although appellant
at times
had been
unavoidable,
temper
not withstand blows
produced by
on iron
it
not be one
So,
a rail.
wood.
Tex.
it
and no
removing
pleading
chose the
That
all
instrumentality
imperfect
the rail.”
for
is ever
or throw off
is not
being unavoidable,
This is the crucial
if
respect
have been ascertained had
injury
that would withstand
rails,
well
with care blows
testified:
and he
use
come
failed
seeing
as to
contentions
Appellee
with;
employed
witnesses,
authority bearing
pick
would
in the
the tool
means at hand to as-
placed
under which
is not
imbedded,
controverted,
at times.
used for
gence
his
injured eye,
until a
based
it remain inactive
lant
the treatment
alleged:
blindness
and then
and total
was affirmed
the said defendants
“And
right
performed
agents
his
fail
further
then
there
their said
eye
plaintiff
would be
He went to no doctor
saved.
to caution and warn
hospital;
taken after he
his reason
substance
left the
said
of metallic
sight
right
endanger
then.”
ad-
he
He
“was not able
or it
out
eye
would
eye.”
voluntarily
hospital
is the rule
he
It
mitted that
where the railroad
as well
the other
treating
physicians
injury
com
that when
bined
the result
were
pregnant
him,
and the
that his
defendant
and stated
wife was
person,
wrongful
“I
a third
and he had
think it was discreditable at
leave. He
didn’t
act
testified:
my
plaintiff
bring
nor the
all
act neither
whose
pregnant.
responsible, the defendant
is wife into it and tell them that she
defendant
hap
my
injury
misrepresent
liable,
pened except
preferred,
I
not have
when the
as to
wife
negligencе. Cooley,
me;
than to
he
tell
doctor he was cruel
Ed.)
hospital.
(3d
pp. 121
122. While the
Torts
have kicked me out
perform
likely
pass
give
He was
acts
me and
me
failure
injury
tongue lashing;
hardly
been a remote cause of
I
think
still,
eye,
first cause had not kick me
out.”
eye
injury
arisen,
occurred,
appellee’s eye,
Gohlman,
neither
would have Dr.
who dressed
morning got
telephone
has no cause of com
stated: “The
I
next
physicians
message
plaint
surgeon.
acts of
from the house
I arrived
jury. Appellant
hospital
did
submitted to
at the
at 8 o’clock and went into
charge appellee
dressing
lack of care
room where
dressed the
eyes, and,
appearing wounds,
dressing
treatment
the
that the
inal
was
and Mr. Wilson was in the
orig
leave;
preparing
betweеn the
causal connection
room
there
he said he
injuries
negligente
consequent
stay any longer
couldn’t
because his wife was
unbroken,
child,
affirmative er
about to
birth to a
and he would
charge.
go
thought
home,
ror in the
rule
-is
have
ought
and that he
injury
plaintiff
for which
has received an
to be there under
circumstances.
those
liable,
although
thought
defendant
ex
I told him
a man
physi
selecting a
ercises reasonable care
should be home under
those circumstances
injury
wound,
ordinary
cian
aggravated
treat
but the
was in such condi-
*7
ought
stay
unskillful
treatment of
there,
argued
tion that he
with
may
physician,
fully
the
enhanced
ment,
mately
recover the
hour,
him
for
half an
produced
damages
surgeon
such treat
argued
house
was there too and
they
proxi
follow
arе deemed to
him how serious it would be should he leave
wrong
hospital,
the defendant. 2
from
protest
and over our
he left.”
1091; Railway
Thompson
Neg.
Hollis, Appellee
v.
specifically deny
on
does not
that such
App.
Railway
2
Cas. Ct.
Civ.
Willson.
him
conversation between
and Dr. Gohlman
eighteenth
Doyle,
place. Appellee