Opinion ID: 1799090
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Include Welding as One of Occupations Plaintiff Had Pursued.

Text: Defendant also complains of the instructions because of their omission of plaintiff's former occupation of welder. In instructing the jury as to plaintiff's former occupations, the trial court stated: You are instructed that, in order for you to determine that Robert J. Harker is completely unable to engage in gainful occupations for which he is reasonably fitted by education, training, and experience, you must not only be satisfied by the greater weight of the credible evidence that he is completely unable to engage in farming, mechanics, or iron or steel work, which are the occupations in which he had actually worked and had some training and experience prior to his injury; . . . In light of the testimony at the trial that plaintiff did welding and burning in connection with ironwork, it hardly appears to be error for the trial court merely to fail to be more specific in his description of ironwork. We believe that the jury would have no difficulty in recalling that welding and burning were involved in plaintiff's ironwork. Even if this omission is erroneous, we consider it highly improbable a different result would have followed if the error had not been made in view of the testimony that plaintiff after the accident required the assistance of fellow workmen in order to do welding. By the Court. Judgment affirmed. WILKIE, J., took no part.