Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1910-10-13
EDWARD CAMPBELL .. H. UACKFELD co

struck out If IT afterwards before the
was not refuse
whether he was drinking the time of
dent
Tm,Insfuctions-fa for ry for court-cout no,
required TO summarize facts TO 1hich Instructions
Instructions properly involving finding by
jury of defendants liability finding by that the
plaintiff negligent
1t is not the specifically facts in
the case to which its instructions intended apply.
,oore-yolunap submission Of personal examination
The plaintiff waived his OK.
amned by physician by voluntarily submitting his
animation by the physician in the jury.
OPINION OF THE COURT HARTwELI, CT.
The plaintiff brought action the recover dam.
ages for injuries his person received in the defendants
poy resulting from the breaking of defective rope used in
hosting from the hold of the ship which he employed
two trucks which had been used in discargng cargo The
details OF the shown at the former trial in which d.
reced verdict was set aside appear in 20 aw. 49, verdict
for the defendant rendered the second trial and the
plaintiff brings exceptions to rulings upon evidence grant
ing the defendants motion that the plaintiffs person be
amned by physician, certain instructions refused AMI
others which were given to the verdict contrary law the
evidence and the weight of evidence and the refusal of his
motion for trial based on the same grounds
The verdict was not unsupported by evidence On the
tray there evidence, and than scinl in support
of which in conformity with the established practice of this
court requires the verdict to stand unless there preudca
error in the rulings instructions requiring the plaintiff
to submit to personal examination
Exceptions taken the striking of certain
made by witnesses for the plaintiff the grounds that they
differences heey irresponsible the questions APP
proprate for redirect examination immatera and to the
rejection OF certain offers OF evidence by the plaintiff the
ground that the offer sufficiently specific failing
state specific facts sought tobe shown but the evidence
struck out rejected afterwards presented and
the jury it is unnecessary discuss whether they right
wrong the plaintiff not harmed ny them. Territory
Nobrga. 1G law. 30 This applies exceptions l. 8, s.
s, o. TO- II and 10.
In exception witness for the plaintiff when asked Wha
the which Tom Pedro showed the rope the
captain " answered at seemed he showing the rope
the captain and at the time it seemed in the way
he speaking that the rope rotten unfit to use The
struck responsive and giving the wit
ness opinion. The witness having testified that he did
member that he understood spoken between the
captain and Tom Pedro" the ruling was correct.
As reference to exceptions 10, IA and Is appears in
the brief of either party they be taken relied
Exception ~ taken the refusal allow the plaintiff
ask of his witnesses whether the time of the accident the
plaintiff "was drinking not" 1t is not obvious what
bearing the fact that the plaintiff not drinking if
shown would have had upon the since the most would
only have affected the of damage to which he would
have been entitled if he had received verdict and for the
further reason that in the absence of evidence to the contrary
the presumption that his habits good.
The plaintiff requested the following instructions which
refused
IF you find that the time of the falling of the trucks
plaintiff working in the hold under the hatch and
that plaintiff had duty liability selection, oversight
charge of the ropes used in hauling the trucks and that
the plaintiff did not hear the call stand from under if you
find there was such CALL then the plaintiff not guilty of
conrbuory negligence
IF yo,fnd that the time of the falling of the trucks into
the hold plaintiff working in the starboard wing of the
hold not directly beneath the open hatch but the staboad
side of the space in the hold directly beneath the hatch and
from under heavy bodies falling through the hatch he
guilty of contributory negligence"
The instructions properly refused they involve
finding by the jury of the defendants liability duty which
question of law for the court and finding by the court
that there negligence in being where the plaintiff stood
the time of the accident.
The plaintiff excepted to the following instructions, which
We're given:
f you find from the evidence that although the defendant
have been guilty Of negligence through its
tribung to produce the injury complained of still if You find
that the plaintiff also guilty of negligence proxmatey
tribung thereto the defendant liable unless his negligent
act occurred after he became of the danger which
plaintiff by his neglect may have exposed himself"
IF you believe from the evidence that the danger which
the plaintiff exposed risk by him. if such
danger risk ordinarily incident his work.
danger of which he knew by the exercise of ordinary
in the discharge of his duties might have known the plaintiff
is entitled nothing and your verdict he for the defend
ant"