Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 48).pdf/759

 Master and servant — railroad employer and coal mine owner held joint wrongdoers.

2. A fireman on a locomotive who is injured by a collision between the locomotive and some cars placed on the track by a coal company may maintain a joint action against the railway company and the coal company if the collision was produced by the negligence of the railway comanycompany [sic] in operating the locomotive at an excessive rate of speed, concurring with the negligent act of the coal company in placing the cars on the track.

Appeal and error — evidence — master and servant — amending complaint by adding name of Director General, and further specification as to injuries, not prejudicial error; in a fireman’s personal injury action engineer’s statement just before collision held admissible as part of res gestae; erroneous admission or exclusion of evidence held cured by other evidence; calling witness for cross-examination held not prejudicial error; evidence admissible on question of relation; testimony founded on hearsay, inadmissible.

3. Certain rulings relating to amendment of the complaint, the examination of witnesses, and the admission and rejection of evidence considered, and, for reasons stated in the opinion, held proper or non-prejudicial.

Evidence — permitting physician to explain X-ray plates in personal injury action held not error.

4. Where X-ray plates had been proved by a physician, it was competent for him to explain them to the jury in particulars that are not understood by laymen.

Evidence — testimony of medical experts as to nature and extent of injury held proper.

5. It is proper to receive the opinions of medical experts as to the nature and extent of a personal injury.

Evidence — injured servant is competent to testify to his feelings, pains and symptoms.

6. The injured person is a competent witness to testify to his feelings, pains and symptoms, as well as to all the characteristics of the injury, so far as the same are perceptible to the senses, and do not require the exercise of scientific skill and knowledge.

Trial—jury should not be instructed as to the effect of special verdict on parties’ ultimate rights or liabilities.

7. Where a case is submitted for a special verdict the jury should not be informed by instructions as to the effect of answers to questions in such special verdict on the ultimate right or liability of either party. It is proper, however, to give to the jury instructions embodying general rules of law appropriate to the particular questions of the special verdict in connection with which such rules are given.