Croghan v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company

• Decision Date: 22 September 1916
• Docket Number: 18722
• Parties: JAMES CROGHAN, APPELLEE, v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, APPELLANT
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

159 N.W. 428

100 Neb. 253

JAMES CROGHAN, APPELLEE, v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, APPELLANT

No. 18722

Supreme Court of Nebraska

September 22, 1916

APPEAL from the district court for Douglas county: ALEXANDER C TROUP, JUDGE. Affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

W. D McHugh, W. H. Herdman and John M. Kelley, for appellant.

Mahoney & Kennedy, contra.

OPINION

MORRISSEY, C. J.

This is an action growing out of the same wreck discussed in Maucher v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., ante, P. 236. Plaintiff was an employee of a circus company. He had entered into a contract similar in all respects to the contract made between Maucher and the circus company, and it is agreed by all parties that with the single exception of the amount of recovery the cases are substantially the same, and the ruling in one may stand as the ruling in both.

There was a verdict and judgment for $ 15,000, and defendant insists that this is grossly excessive. At the time of the accident plaintiff was 31 years of age, with a life expectancy of more than 33 years. He had been employed by the circus company but a short time, and for that service was getting $ 15 a month, with his living furnished. It is claimed, however, that the opportunity to travel and visit many of the places of interest in the United States was a consideration inducing him to take this employment, and that prior to taking this engagement he had been earning, as a carpenter, $ 1,200 to $ 1,500 a year.

There is little dispute as to the serious character of his injuries. There was an iron rod driven through his knee, his head was cut in several places, his body bruised and lacerated, and his suffering must have been intense. He was confined in the hospital for several weeks, where he was attended by the defendant's surgeon, a man eminent in his profession, who testified as a witness for the plaintiff. There is also the testimony of other eminent surgeons, and from their testimony we gather that plaintiff's knee is seriously crippled. He is suffering from atrophy of the muscles of one shoulder. Dr. Summers, defendant's surgeon at the time of the accident, testified that plaintiff had been under his care from the date of the accident to the date of trial, a period of about six months; that, in addition to the injuries already stated, he was then suffering with a tumor of the left hip. "He has a tumor in the covering of the bone. I would say the upper part of the...