105 Minn. 144 | Minn. | 1908
The defendant, in Januarjr, 1907, was engaged in operating a logging railroad in the county of Becker, this state, and the plaintiff was in its employ as a brakeman, charged with the duty of coupling and uncoupling the logging cars from the engine. On January 4, while the plaintiff was attempting to couple the engine to a string of empty cars on a side track, his right hand and arm were caught between the coupling bar and the coupler and the framework of the car, whereby he sustained serious personal injuries.
This action was brought to recover damages for such injuries, on the alleged ground that they were caused by the negligence of the defend
An examination of the record satisfies us that the evidence was such as to require the submission of the case to the jury; but, inasmuch as there must be a new trial of the action for errors in the charge to the jury, we refrain from referring to the evidence, except in connection with thé instructions of the court to the jury.
The issue as to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff was sharply contested on the trial. The defendant gave in evidence several alleged admissions of the plaintiff relevant to this issue. The testimony of several witnesses, examined on behalf of the defendant, tended to show that the plaintiff, at the time he was injured and on subsequent occasions, made admissions to the effect that the accident was due to his own negligence. The engineer testified that he heard the plaintiff call for help when the accident occurred; that he went to his assistance, and in response to his question how it happened he answered, “I don’t know; it was my own fault.” If this testimony be true, and the answer was understandingly made, it was not only an admission of a party to the action relevant to an important issue, but it was a part of the res geste. Several other witnesses testified that the plaintiff at other times and places stated, in effect, that the accident was the result of his own fault, and that nobody else was to blame. The plaintiff denied that he ever made any admissions or statements of the kind.
It is clear from the instructions, considered as a whole, that the giving of the portions which are assigned as error was' prejudicial er
It is familiar law that the admissions and statements of a party to the record of a fact relevant to the issue stand upon a different basis than those of a mere witness, which contradict his testimony given on the trial. In the last case, if the proper foundation had been laid by calling the- witness’ attention to time, place, and circumstances, evidence that he made the admission or statement, if material and relevant, is admissible, not as tending to prove the fact, but solely for the purpose of affecting his credibility. But in the case of a party such admissions and statements may be received in evidence without laying any foundation therefor, as evidence tending to establish the fact to which they relate. All admissions by a party, made outside the record, if relevant to the issue, are admissible in evidence, and such evidence has a twofold effect. It tends, as does other competent evidence, to prove the fact in issue to which the admissions relate, and where they contradict the testimony of the party the evidence tends to discredit him; or, in other words, such evidence is admissible to prove the fact admitted and to discredit the party. Such admissions, however, unlike those which are a part of the record, are not necessarily conclusive of the fact to which they relate. The evidence tending to prove them is to be received and considered in connection with all other evidence relevant to the issue. 2 Wigmore, Ev. § 1048; 16 Cyc. 939; Sullivan v. Murphy, 23 Minn. 6; Hosford v. Rowe, 41 Minn. 245, 42 N. W. 1018; Mathews v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 81 Minn. 363, 84 N. W. 101, 83 Am. St. 383; Taylor v. Grand Lodge A. O. U. W., 101 Minn. 72, 111 N. W. 919, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 92, 118 Am. St. 606.
It is urged by counsel for the plaintiff that the charge of the court, taken as a whole, was in accordance with the law as we have indicated it. There are some parts of the charge which, if considered without reference to other connected portions of the charge, tend in some measure to support the claim of counsel. However, a reading of the charge as a whole is all that is necessary to demonstrate the claim that it was prejudicial error. The trial court, lest the jury might misunderstand the purpose and effect of the evidence as to plaintiff’s admissions, as he had instructed them, and consider it as tending to
Again, it is urged that, if there were error in the charge, it was harmless, because the jury necessarily found as a fact that the admissions were not made. Who knows? There were no special findings by the jury. They may have found that they were made, and also that they did not discredit the plaintiff’s testimony to an extent which would justify them in rejecting the whole thereof.
Lastly, it is urged that defendant’s counsel should have called the court’s attention to the inconsistency of the charge. The error was not alone that the charge was inconsistent, but that the rule of law given to the jury for their guidance was in substance unsound, to which an exception was taken at the time it was given.
Lor such error, the order appealed from must be reversed, and a new trial granted. So ordered.