Case Name: HINKEL v. OREGON CHAIR CO.
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1916-04-11
Citations: 80 Or. 404
Docket Number: 
Parties: HINKEL v. OREGON CHAIR CO.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Justice Burnett and Mr. Justice McBride concur.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 80
Pages: 404–412

Head Matter:
Argued March 27,
affirmed April 11,
rehearing denied May 16, 1916.
HINKEL v. OREGON CHAIR CO.
(156 Pac. 438; 157 Pac. 789.)
Evidence—Experiments.
1. In an action for personal injuries to a servant from a piece of wood thrown by a saw, evidence as to experiments made with the same saw under practically identical condition was admissible.
New Trial—Misconduct of Jury—Affidavits—Hearsay.
2. Affidavits of the plaintiff and his counsel, on motion for new trial as to misconduct of the jury during deliberation, were inadmissible as necessary hearsay.
Trial—Verdict—Affidavits of Jurors to Impeach.
3. The affidavit of a juror cannot be received to impeach the verdict.
New Trial—Grounds'—Falsity of Juror’s Testimony.
4. Where the falsity of a juror’s testimony on his primary examination as to material matters is shown by competent evidence, a new trial should be granted at the motion of the losing party.
New Trial—Verdict—Impeachment by Jurors’ Affidavits.
5. The affidavits of jurors are not competent evidence, on a motion for new trial, to prove the misconduct of a member of the jury, while such body was deliberating, by stating that he knew plaintiff, had seen him previously injured, and that the present litigation was a scheme to get money out of the defendant for the former injury.
[As to jurors’ affidavits and statements in support of motion for new trial, see note in 12 Am. Dec. 142.]
From Multnomah: Robert G. Morrow, Judge.
Department 1. Statement by Mr. Justice Benson.
This is an action by George Hinkel against the Oregon Chair Company, a Corporation, to recover damages for the loss of the sight of an eye.
The complaint alleges that while plaintiff was working in defendant’s factory cutting off the ends of a handful of small sticks, called “stretchers,” with a trimming saw, a small piece of wood was thrown up from the saw, striking him in the eye and causing the injury upon which this action is based; that the accident would not have occurred if a proper guard had been placed over the saw. During the trial it developed that plaintiff had been the victim of another accident some six or seven years before, in which he had lost the sight of the other eye, for which he prosecuted an action for damages. From a verdict and judgment for the defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
For appellant there was a brief over the names of Messrs. Schmitt & Schmitt, with an oral argument by Mr. L. E. Schmitt.
For respondent there was a brief over the names of Mr. F. G. Howell and Messrs. Wilbur, Spencer & Beckett, with an oral argument by Mr. Howell.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Benson
delivered the opinion of the court.
1. There are two points presented for our consideration: First, that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of the witness Davison as to the experiments made by him and another with the same saw under the same conditions, and that no pieces were thrown up with sufficient force to do any injury. An examination of the testimony .shows that the conditions under which the experiments were made were practically identical with those under which the accident occurred, and therefore there was no error in admitting the evidence.
2, 3. The second contention is that alleged misconduct of the jury renders the verdict and judgment invalid, and entitles plaintiff to a new trial. The point was first raised in the lower court upon a motion for a new trial, liased upon the affidavits of plaintiff, his attorney, and three of the jurors. We dismiss at once the statements of plaintiff and his counsel, as they are necessarily based upon the information received by them from the jurors. Two of the remaining affidavits recite certain statements which they allege that another juror made during the deliberations of the jury, in reference to the former injury of plaintiff and its possible effect upon the present action. The third relates that there was a general discussion among the jurors as to the bearing of the former injury upon the latter. The verdict was unanimous. It is well established in this state that the affidavit of a juror cannot be received to impeach the verdict. The matter is discussed and conclusively determined in the case of State v. Smith,, 43 Or. 109 (71 Pac. 973). Plaintiff contends, however, that the statements made by the juror in the jury-room stamp as false his answers upon voir dire, and that a verdict will be set aside when it appears that a juror upon his examination falsely states his knowledge, interest and position, or conceals a material fact, etc. Plaintiff, however, upon this point, meets again the fact that he must invade the secrecy of the jury-room for his evidence, which is not permitted; but if it were, the statements in the affidavits are not necessarily inconsistent with the truth of the juror's answers upon his voir dire. It follows that the judgment should he affirmed ; and it is so ordered.
Messrs. Schmitt & Schmitt, for the petition.
Messrs. Wilbur, Spencer & Beckett and Mr. F. C. Rowell, contra,.
Department 1.
Affirmed. Rehearing Denied.
Mr. Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Justice Burnett and Mr. Justice McBride concur.