Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-08-03

probable that she might recover her
usual state of health and strength.
1t was shown that before the acci-
dent plaintiff had always enjoyed
good health and was able to do her
own housework, and was at least up
to the standard of the average
healthy woman in strength and en-
durance; that her weight before the
accident was 122 Y pounds, and at
the time of the trial was 1922
pounds.
Defendants counsel requested the
court to instruct the jury that there
was no evidence tending to show an
external injury, and that they would
not be warranted in allowing her
any compensation for alleged exter-
nal injuries, which instruction was
refused. Defendant also requested
the court to charge the Jury that
there was no evidence tending to
show that plaintiff was permanently
injured and that they would not be
warranted in finding any damages on
that account. This instruction was
also refused. Plaintiff had a YER
dict for $S500 and defendant appeals.
Mcbride, J. Evidence that there
was a black and blue spot on plain
tiffs back, the size of the palm of
the hand, and that it resulted from
the collision, is certainly evidence of
an external injury, and the instruc-
tion was properly refused. While the
evidence as to the probability of a
permanent injury is conflicting and
OF such nature that reasonable per-
sons might differ as to its value and
ehect' we are of the opinion that
there was some evidence from which
legitimate inference of probable
permanent injury could have been
inferred. The fact that five months
after the injury the pain in plain
TINS back still continued without
sensible abatement and that she was
sun unable to perform her house
mold duties; that her weight CON
tlnued to be 20 pounds less than
normal, and her nervous condition
was unabated, might Justly lead a
reasonable man to conclude that the
consequences of the injury would
continue indefinitely. It is true tbot
physicians and experts called by
plaintiff expressed an opinion that
under proper treatment, she might
recover; and that experts called Inv
the defense expressed an oninior
that she had never received any ser.
ious injury. But, as was stated hv
one physician, the extent of such in.
luries cannot always be determined
by any external examination and the
physician must depend to a great ev.
tent upon the statement of condition
as detailed by the batient If foi-
lows that, II the physician mnst re.
ly, to some extent, upon such state
ment, the jury, II they beleva tbo
witness, may do the same.
/ AS remarked by the court IN No
con Railway Co. V. Streyer. 193 20
zty, where similar question arosa
Inc evidence as to the permanenco
OF the plaintiffs injuries was by ne Nc
means strong or convincing hnt wo @
cannot say that it was erroneons 60.
the trial Judge to give to the iurv M iD-
srucuons on the subject of damages
LOT permanent injuries. II was jn
evidence that the plaintiffs ininrias
were received nearly year - bosass rt ,ss
the case was tried. that She boJ So ul,s :
tered continuously since that t;,lo u.-
ana mat her suffering had NOT ceasad ,,,s.J,
OF aoated. We know of No 1seu Is1
which confines the jury to mAdico, icG
expert testimony in consi5an',C.C ,.sulCal
case OF this kind, nor can We eor