and do not require the exercise of scientific skill and knowledge; and indeed it has been held that he is better qualified to testify to such matters than any one else.” 7 Ency. Ev. 394—395.
Among the questions submitted in the special verdict were:
“Was the plaintiff, Asch, at the time he received the injuries complained of, guilty of want of ordinary care which contributed to produce the injuries complained of ?”
“Were the injuries received by the plaintiff the result of the ordinary risks of his employment?” ‘
In its instructions the court defined the terms “‘ordinary care” and ordinary risks of the employment,” and directed the jury to determine from the evidence in the case whether affirmative or negative answers should be made to the two questions above quoted. It is contended that the court in effect gave general instructions, and also “indirectly advised the jury the effect or result of their answering the questions involved one way or the other.” In our opinion the instructions are not objectionable on either ground. No general instructions were given in the case at all. ‘The only instructions given were with reference to the particular questions embraced in the special verdict and propositions incidental thereto. Thus the court instructed as to the rules to be applied in determining the credibility of witnesses, and the weight of evidence, defined the terms “burden of proof” and “preponderance of evidence,” and also, as has been indicated, defined the terms “ordinary care” and “ordinary risks of employment.” It seems to us that it was not only permissive, but that it was eminently proper, for the court to define these terms in order that the jury might intelligently answer the questions containing them. Horn v. La Crosse Box Co., 131 Wis. 384, 111 N. W. 522; Schroeder v. Wis. Cent. R. Co., 117 Wis. 33, 93 N. W. 837; Banderob v. Wis. Cent. R. Co., 21 S. D. 396, 113 N. W. 738. See, also, Swallow v. First State Rank, 35 N. D. 608, 617, 161 'N. W. 207; Nygaard v. N. P. Ry. Co., 178 N. W. 962.
Error is also predicated upon certain statements claimed to have been made by plaintiff’s counsel in the closing argument to the jury. It appears from plaintiff’s testimony that, upon being taken to the hospital at Bismarck after the injury, he was placed under the care of, and received treatment from, Dr. Ramstad. It, also, appears that immediately prior to or during the course of the trial the trial court, at defendants” request, appointed certain physicians to examine the plaintiff; that Dr.
