Carroll v. Centralia Water Co.
| Decision Date | 08 May 1893 |
| Parties | CARROLL v. CENTRALIA WATER CO. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
For majority opinion, see 32 P. 609.
Plaintiff was injured on a dark night by falling into a hole dug by defendant in a public alley for a telephone pole, and left unguarded. The injury resulted solely through defendant's negligence, and incapacitated plaintiff from labor for six weeks, thereby causing him to lose two dollars a day. He was lame 10 months thereafter, and one of his legs would probably always be weaker and stiffer than before. In an action for damages, the verdict gave plaintiff "$85 for loss of time and doctors' fees, and the sum of $600 as damages for injuries sustained." Held, that the verdict showed on its face that the jury comprehended the evidence, and also the law applicable to the assessment of damages.
The opinion of the majority of the court seems to lay down the rule that, however erroneous may be the instructions given by a court to a jury, the judgment will not on that account be reversed here, if, under all the circumstances of the case this court is of the opinion that the damages recovered were not excessive. In other words, it seems to be held that such erroneous instructions will not reverse the cause unless it affirmatively appears from the record that the appellant has been injured by such instructions. I am unable to agree to such proposition. As I understand the rule in regard to such matters, it is that material error in ruling upon a question of law during the progress of the trial, or in instructions given to the jury, will entitle the party against whom such ruling is made to a reversal of the judgment unless it affirmatively appears from the record, beyond any reasonable controversy, that the error committed by the court could not have affected the verdict rendered by the jury, or the judgment of the court; that where, as in this case, it is conceded that the instruction of the court as to the measure of damages was incorrect, the fact that, even with such erroneous instruction, the jury did not render a larger verdict than, under all the proofs, this court thinks the plaintiff entitled to, would in no manner establish the fact that the appellant had not in fact been injured by such erroneous instruction. The jury is the body that is to determine the amount of damages,...
To continue reading
Request your trial