Olson v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Railroad

Citations

• 12 S.D. 326
• 81 N.W. 634
• 1900 S.D. LEXIS 42

Syllabus

<p>1. A complaint, charging a railroad company with negligently maintaining a defective coupling-pin hole in a car coupler was amended during trial by striking out “coupling-pin hole” and substituting “link-pin hole.” Held that, since the amendment did not materially change the issues, there was no error.</p> <p>2. Admitting in evidence a rougli model of a casting resembling a car coupler that caused a personal injury was not error, when the objection thereto was that it was “incompetent and immaterial,” as the objectiou was not sufficiently specific.</p> <p>3. Plaintiff, in describing how his finger was injured in uncoupling a car from an engine, stated that the “bull nose” of the engine was worn so ho could not pull the pin without injury. Whereupon, on being asked, “State how it was,” he answered that he did not think that he could have pulled the pin without getting pinched, which answer defendant moved to strike out as incompetent. Held, that the question was not clearly irresponsive, and was competent as an opinion.</p> <p>4. Where a brakeman, after an injury, ceased to work for 39 days, and his pay amounted to $2.05 for every 100 miles which he traveled as brakeman, and his average run per day was 136 miles, testimony as to the number of days that he was unable to work was admissible as a basis for determination of the damages.</p>