Hastings Lumber Co. v. Garland

Citations

• 115 F. 15
• 52 C.C.A. 609
• 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4179

Syllabus

<p>1. Injury to Employe — Declarations—Admissibility in Evidence.</p> <p>The boiler of a locomotive engine owned by defendant exploded, causing the death of pláintiff’s decedent, the engineer. It appeared that the engine hád been purchased from another corporation, which had sent it away to be repaired. The repairs were made under the inspection of one S., an engineer employed by the seller, and who continued as such in the service of defendant It did not appear that S. had any duties in the way of superintendence. Held, that reports made to S., while he was the seller’s engineer, by the men repairing the engine, as to the condition of the stay bolts (the giving way of which presumably caused the explosion), were inadmissible, where not shown to have been communicated by S. to defendant</p> <p>2. Actions for Wrongful Death — Elements of Damage — Physical Suffer. ing — Evidence of — Sufficiency.</p> <p>Pub. St. N. H. c. 191, § 8, provides that actions of tort for physical injuries to the person shall survive to the extent set forth in the following sections. Section 12 declares that if decedent’s administrator is plaintiff, and the death of the party was caused by the injury complained of in the action, the mental and physical pain suffered by him in consequence of the injury, etc., may be considered as an element of damage. In an action for an injury by a locomotive explosion, causing the death of the locomotive engineer, it merely appeared that the explosion had occurred, and that decedent’s body was found on the snow about 200 feet away, with life extinct and showing no signs of mangling, with blood escaping from the mouth, nose, and ears. ‘Held error to submit to the jury the issue of physical suffering as an element of damages.</p>