Case Name: RAIHA v. COOS BAY COAL & FUEL CO.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1915-06-29
Citations: 77 Or. 275
Docket Number: 
Parties: RAIHA v. COOS BAY COAL & FUEL CO.
Judges: Mr. Justice Burnett, Mr. Justice Eakin and Mr. Justice McBride concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 77
Pages: 275–284

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeal argued September 1, denied September 8, 1914.
On the merits argued June 3,
reversed June 29,
rehearing denied September 7, 1915.
RAIHA v. COOS BAY COAL & FUEL CO.
(143 Pac. 892; 149 Pac. 940; 151 Pac. 471.)
Appeal and Error — Proceedings to Transfer Cause — Notice of Appeal.
1. Under Section 550, L. O. L., making a notiee of appeal sufficient if it contains the title of the ease, the names of the parties, and notifies the adverse party or his attorney that an appeal is taken from the judgment, a notice “that the above-named plaintiff appeals to the Supreme Court of this state from the judgment entered May 23d, •in favor of the defendant, and appeals from whole of such judgment,” is sufficient, where the transcript shows that, at a regular term of court in the county from whieh the appeal is taken, a judgment was rendered on May 23, 1914, between the parties named in the title of the case in favor of defendant.
ON THE MERITS.
Appeal and Error — Rulings on Evidence — Bill of Exceptions.
2. Under Section 171, L. O. L., providing that an objection shall be stated with so much of the evidence as is necessary to explain it, an exception to a ruling on evidence is not reviewable unless there is copied in the bill of exceptions so much of the testimony as will enable the court on appeal to understand the question involved.
Appeal and Error — Questions Reviewable — Rulings on Instructions— Bill of Exceptions.
3. Where an exception is taken to an instruction, which under the pleadings is improper under any view of the law, the error is reviewable, though no testimony is incorporated in the bill of exceptions.
Master and Servant — Injury to Servant — Employers’ Liability Act— Applicability.
4. A complaint for injuries to a coal mine employee, which alleged that the employer was engaged in mining coal beneath the surface at such depth as to render the work inherently dangerous from accumulation of noxious and combustible gases, which might be guarded against by the exercise of reasonable care, that the employer failed to install ventilating fans and air shafts, and that by reason thereof the employee, on entering a room in the mine, was burned by an explosion, stated a cause of action under Employers’ Liability Act (Laws 1911, p. 16), declaring that all persons having charge of, or responsible for, any work involving risk or danger to the employees shall use every device practicable, and providing that contributory negligence of the person injured shall not be a defense, so that a charge that an em ployee guilty of contributory negligenee could not recover was erroneous.
[As to what is “accident arising out of and in course of employment/’ within the Employers’ Liability Act, see note in Ann. Cas. 1914D, 1284.]
ON REHEARING-.
Appeal and Error — Review—Presumption.
5. Where the bill of exceptions does not purport to contain all the evidence, and fails to state that none was offered on a particular issue, it will be presumed, from instructions given thereon, that they were predicated on evidence received thereon.
Negligence — Contributory Negligence — Apportioning Damages.'
6. Contributory negligence is not a defense, under the Employers’ Liability Act (Laws 1911, p. 16), to an action for a servant’s injury, but is ground for apportioning the damages according to the respective want of care of the parties.
From Coos: John S. Coke, Judge.
This is an action by Eino Raiha against the Coos Bay Coal & Fuel Company, a corporation, wherein judgment was rendered in favor of defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Respondent files motion to dismiss the appeal.
Motion Denied.
Mr. John D. Goss and Mr. J. C. Kendall, for the motion.
Mr. William T. Stoll and Messrs. Brenn & Hyde, contra.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Moore
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal, and is based on the ground that the notice therefor does not sufficiently identify the judgment sought to be reviewed. Omitting the title of the court and cause, the names of the defendant and its attorneys who are addressed, and the names of the attorneys subscribed to the, notice, it reads:
"You. will please take notice that the above-named plaintiff (appellant) appeals to the Supreme Court of this state from the judgment entered May 23d, in favor of the defendant (respondent), and appeals from the whole of such judgment. ' '
The transcript herein shows that a regular term of the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for Coos County was held at the courthouse in that county, commencing April 27, 1914; the same being the fourth Monday in that month and the time fixed by law for holding such term, at which were present the trial judge and other officers.
"When on Saturday, the 23d day of May, 1914, the same being the twenty-second judicial day of said term of said court, the following proceedings, among others, were had, to wit: Eino Raiha, Plaintiff, v. Coos Bay Coal & Fuel Company, Defendant. No. 3840. Now, at this time the jury impaneled to try the above-.entitled cause having returned their verdict in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, which verdict is received by the court and filed herein. On motion of defendant for judgment on such verdict, it is considered, ordered and adjudged that judgment be and the same is hereby rendered and given in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff for its costs and disbursements. (Journal signed.)
"John S. Coke,
"Judge."
The undertaking on appeal does not identify the judgment complained of with any greater particularity than the specification in the notice. The statute referring to the written means of initiating an appeal is in part as follows:
' ' Such notice shall be sufficient if it contains the title of the cause, the names of the parties, and notifies the adverse party or his attorney that an appeal is taken to the Supreme Court or Circuit Court, as the case may be, from tbe judgment, order or decree, or some specified part thereof": Section 550, L. O. L.
It is admitted tbat tbe several requirements of tbe statute have been complied with, but it is maintained tbat tbe judgment is not adequately specified in tbe notice of appeal. Under tbe practice formerly prevailing in tbis court, a notice of appeal as indefinite as tbe one under consideration would probably be regarded as insufficient: Crawford v. Wist, 26 Or. 596 (39 Pac. 218); Duffy v. McMahon, 30 Or. 306 (47 Pac. 787); Hamilton v. Butler, 33 Or. 370 (54 Pac. 200). Tbe later decisions, however, are to tbe effect tbat if, from an inspection of tbe notice of appeal it can be determined by fair construction or reasonable intendment, and without resort to evidence aliunde tbe transcript, tbat tbe appeal is taken from tbe judgment or decree in a particular case, it will be sufficient to confer jurisdiction of tbe cause: Summers v. Geer, 50 Or. 249 (85 Pac. 513, 93 Pac. 133); Ferrari v. Beaver Hill Coal Co., 54 Or. 210 (94 Pac. 181, 95 Pac. 498, 102 Pac. 175, 1016); Keady v. United Rys. Co., 57 Or. 325 (100 Pac. 658, 108 Pac. 197); MacMahon v. Hull, 63 Or. 133 (119 Pac. 348, 124 Pac. 474, 126 Pac. 3); Holton v. Holton, 64 Or. 290 (129 Pac. 532); Fraley v. Hoban, 69 Or. 180 (133 Pac. 1190).
An oral notice of appeal, given when tbe judgment or decree is rendered, is now sufficient to secure a transfer of tbe cause, if a proper undertaking be given and tbe transcript filed within tbe time limited therefor : Section 550, L. O. L. As consonant with this late enactment, tbe procedure tbat heretofore obtained, with respect to tbe manner of inaugurating an appeal, has been so modified as to avoid all technicalities, and a written notice is now held to be sufficient if it com plies with the requirements of the statute hereinbefore quoted, and, if from an inspection thereof the adverse party could not have been misled as to the order, judgment or decree undertaken to be reviewed.
Believing that the notice of appeal herein is adequate in these particulars, the motion to dismiss the appeal should be denied, and it is so ordered.
Motion to Dismiss Denied.