Case Name: FERRARI v. BEAVER HILL COAL CO.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1909-07-13
Citations: 54 Or. 210
Docket Number: 
Parties: FERRARI v. BEAVER HILL COAL CO.
Judges: From Coos: James W. Hamilton, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 54
Pages: 210–230

Head Matter:
Argued on the merits April 8,
decided July 13, 1909.
FERRARI v. BEAVER HILL COAL CO.
[94 Pac. 181; 95 Pac. 498; 102 Pac. 175; 102 Pac. 1016.]
Appeal — Defects in Transcripts — Correction—Time.
1. Under rule 35, 20 Or. 587 (91 Pac. XII), providing that, for the purpose of correcting any defect in the transcript from the court below, either party may suggest the same, and on good cause shown obtain an order on the proper clerk certifying the whole or part of the record as may be required, an application for an order to supply the record will be granted, although not made until after the motion to dismiss the appeal has been submitted.
Appeal — N otice — Sufficiency.
2. Under Section 545, B. & O. Comp., providing that a notice is valid, though defective as to the name of the court, etc., if it intelligibly refers to the action, a notice of appeal which intelligibly referred to the action in which the appeal was taken was valid, though it was entitled in the Circuit Court of the United States for a certain county instead of in the circuit court of such county.
Holidays — Judicial Proceedings — “Judicial Business.”
8. Under the statute providing that no court shall be open nor any judicial business be transacted on legal holidays, service of notice of appeal is not judicial business, and such notice may be served on a legal holiday other than Sunday.
Appeal — Motion to Dismiss — Questions Reviewable.
4. The Supreme Court will not on motion to dismiss an appeal review the action of the trial judge in permitting the undertaking on appeal to be filed after the expiration of the time allowed by law.
Appeal and Eeeoe-Record — Amendment — Authority op Trial Court.
5. The trial court may, on application therefor, and notice thereof to the adverse party, make an alteration in the original bill of exceptions, provided the amendment is duly made, properly certified, and filed in the Supreme Court before the rendition of a decision on the merits.
Evidence — Facts and Conclusions.
6. Where the complaint, in an action for injuries to a coal miner engaged in taking cars up and down an incline, alleged that the master negligently permitted the signal system used in the miner’s work to get out of repair, and that the master was negligent in the manner of moving the cars on the incline, the testimony of the miner that the signal system was out of repair, and that the ears could have been let down the incline by steam power, stated facts, and not the conclusion of the witness.
Appeal and Error — Objections—Review.
7. Objections, to be available on appeal, must be on the ground on which the error is predicated.
Master and Servant — Injuries to Servant — Proximate Cause — Evidence.
8. A servant suing for a personal injury, who introduces evidence of the defective condition of an appliance, as alleged in the complaint, must show that the injury might have been avoided if the appliance had been in repair.
Appeal and Error — Questions Not Raised Below — Instructions— Request.
9. Though the evidence of a negligent act should have been taken from the jury, in the absence of a reguest therefor, no error could be predicated because of the failure to do so.
Damages — Personal Injury — Evidence—Admissibility.
10. In an action by an infant for personal injury, his testimony as to the length of time he was able to work after the injury, and prior to the trial, was competent to show the extent of the injury and the probable effect it might have on his future earning capacity, though no damages could be assessed for loss of time during his minority.
Appeal and Error — Harmless Error — Evidence—Instructions.
11. Where the court, in an action by an infant for personal injures, charged that no damages could be assessed for loss of time during minority, it would not be presumed that defendant was prejudicéd by the testimony of plaintiff as to the length of time he was able to work after the injury and prior to the trial.
Master and Servant — Injury to Servant — Evidence of Subsequent Conduct.
12. In an action for injuries to a coal miner while working on an incline, permitting the engineer, who had made a plat offered in evidence, to testify on cross-examination that guard rails had been placed-on the incline since the accident, was not erroneous, where the court charged that the jury should not consider the evidence as proof of negligence.
Negligence — Evidence of Subsequent Conduct.
13. Evidence of additional precautions or of subseguent repairs is not competent to prove antecedent negligence, but it may be competent as show ing that the property where the injury was received belonged to, or was in control of, defendant.
Appeal and Error — Prejudical Error — Refusal of Instructions.
14. Where, in an action for injuries to a coal miner while operating cars on an incline, the safety of the incline was not treated as an issue at the trial, and the testimony that the incline was in a reasonably safe condition was not questioned, the refusal to charge that there was no testimony that the incline was not built in the usual manner, etc., was not prejudicial.
Master and Servant — Obligation of Master.
15. A master must point out the unusual and extraordinary risks of the employment, and call the attention of the servant to them, and warn him of the danger.
Master and Servant — Injury to Servant — Assumption of Risk.
16. An infant servant assumes the ordinary hazards and risks of his employment that he, through his intelligence, knows, or should know and appreciate, and he assumes the dangers that are so open and obvious that one of his age, capacity, and experience would, in the exercise of ordinary care, know and appreciate.
Master and Servant — Injury to Servant — Contributory Negligence.
17. That a servant suing for personal injuries is immature in years and inexperienced in the work, is important in determining the question of his contributory negligence.
Master and Servant — Infant Servants — Obligation of Master.
18. A master employing an infant inexperienced in the work must give him sufficient notice of the dangers incident to and attending the employment.
Master and Servant — Injury to Servant — Negligence—Failure to Adopt Rules.
19. The question whether the master was at fault in failing to adopt suitable rules is not for the jui'y, unless there is something in the testimony from which the inference may be drawn that it was practicable to have provided against the occurrence of the accident complained of by such a rule.
Master and Servant — Injury to Servant — Failure to Adopt Rules —Negligence.
20. Whether a master was negligent in omitting to adopt suitable rules for the guidance of the servants, held, under the evidence, for the jury.
Master and Servant — Injury to Servant — Assumption of Risks— Question for Jury.
21. Whether an.infant coal miner assumed the risks incident to his employment, including the taking of defective cars to a shop, held, under the evidence, for the jury.
Appeal and Error — Instructions—Requests—Necessity.
22. A party complaining of the instructions on the measure of damages, in an action for personal injuries, which correctly state the law as far as they go, must request additional instructions; and, in the absence of such request, he cannot urge omissions in the instructions as reversible error.
Appeal and Error — Dismissal as to Codefendant.
23. A judgment against one defendant, in an action for negligence, treated during the trial as against such defendant alone, amounts to a dismissal as to codefendaut, "within Sections 180,181, B. & O. Oomp., and defendant, interposing no objection, is not prejudiced thereby.
From Coos: James W. Hamilton, Judge.
This is an action by James Ferrari, a minor, by Rosa Ferrari, guardian of his person and estate, against the Beaver Hill Coal Company, a corporation, and Daniel Maher, one of its employees, to recover damages for an injury. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal. On motion to dismiss appeal and counter motion on clerk to supply record.
Motion to Supply Record Allowed.
Decided March 10, 1908.
[94 Pac. 181.]
Mr. John S. Coke for the motion.
Messrs. Blake & Liljeqvist, contra.

Opinion:
Motion for Rule on Clerk to Supply.Record.
Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bean.
On February 3, 1908, a motion to dismiss the appeal in this case, on the ground that notice thereof had not been served or filed within the time required by statute, was, by stipulation of the parties, submitted on written briefs. Pending the disposition thereof, the appellants suggested to the court a diminution of the record, and asked for a rule on the clerk below to send up a notice of appeal, which, it is alleged, was served and filed within the statutory time, but which is not included in the transcript. The allowance of this motion is resisted because it comes too, late, and reliance is had on Cross v. Chichester, 4 Or. 114; Alberson v. Mahaffey, 6 Or. 412; State v. McKinmore, 8 Or. 208. The technical rule announced in these cases that an application for permission to correct an error in the transcript must be made before the motion to dismiss the appeal is brought on for hearing, was practically overruled in Elwert v. Norton, 34 Or. 567 (51 Pac. 1097: 59 Pac. 1118) ; Menden hall v. Elwert, 36 Or. 375 (52 Pac. 22: 59 Pac. 805), and Fleischner v. Bank of McMinnville, 36 Or. 553 (54 Pac. 884: 60 Pac. 603: 61 Pac. 345), and the matter is now regulated by rule 35, 50 Or. 587 (91 Pac. xii), which provides that:
Decided May 12, 1908.
Messrs. Blake & Liljeqvist, for the motion.
Mr. John S. Coke and Mr. A. J. Sherwood, contra.
"For the purpose of correcting any error or defect in the transcript from the court below, either party may suggest the same, in writing, to this court, and, upon good cause shown, obtain an order that the proper clerk certify up the whole or part of the record, as may be required."
The court has for years adhered to a liberal practice in matters of this kind, so that neither party to an appeal shall be denied a right to be heard because of some defect in the transcript which can be cured.
The motion will, therefore, be allowed, and the rule issued as prayed for.
Motion to Supply Becord Allowed.
On Motion to Dismiss.
[95 Pac. 498.]
Per Curiam:
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal, because (1) the notice of appeal is entitled in the circuit court of the United States for the county of Coos; (2) the notice was served and filed on a day appointed by the Governor as a legal holiday, and (3) the undertaking on appeal was not served and filed within the time required by law. None of these reasons are sound.
The notice of appeal intelligently referred to the action in which the appeal was taken and is valid and effective, notwithstanding the mistake in the name of the court in the title. Section 545, B. & C. Comp. That was evidently a mere clerical error, and does not affect the merits in any way.
Decided June 8, 1909.
Mr. J. M. Blake, for the motion.
Mr. A. J. Sherwood, Mr. Ralph W. Wilbur, and Mr. John D. Goss, contra.
A legal holiday, other than Sunday, affects only those acts and transactions which are designated in the law establishing the day. The statute, providing for legal holidays, declares that no court shall be open nor any judicial business be transacted on such day, except for certain specified purposes, and under the rule above stated all other acts are legal. Service of notice of appeal is not judicial business within the meaning of the statute, and such a notice may, therefore, be served on a legal holiday. 21 Cyc. 443.
The undertaking was not served and filed within time, but the judge of the court below, on motion of appellant, permitted such undertaking to be filed after the expiration of time allowed by law, and we cannot review his reasons for doing so on motion to dismiss an appeal. Motion Denied.