Donnelly v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 December 1897
• Citation: 70 Minn. 278,73 N.W. 157
• Parties: DONNELLY v ST. PAUL CITY RY. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

70 Minn. 278

73 N.W. 157

DONNELLYvST. PAUL CITY RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 2, 1897.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Held, that the verdict was justified by the evidence, and that it was not excessive.

2. When the issue is whether the present bodily ailments of a party were caused by certain injuries, a medical expert may give an opinion as to the cause of such bodily ailments, founded upon a statement of the nature of the injury, the subsequent symptoms of the party, and his present physical condition, as testified to by others.

Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; William Louis Kelly, Judge.

Action by Annie E. Donnelly against the St. Paul City Railway Company to recover damages for personal injuries. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Munn & Thygeson, for appellant.

Stevens, O'Brien, Cole & Albrecht, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from the derailment of a car on defendant's Grand avenue line, on which plaintiff was a passenger. The accident is alleged to have been caused by the negligent failure of the defendant to maintain its road in proper condition, and by its running the car at an unsafe rate of speed over the rough and otherwise defective track. There was, in fact, no dispute as to the negligence of the defendant. The main contention of defendant on the trial was that the plaintiff did not sustain any such serious injuries as she claimed, and that the ailments from which she subsequently suffered were not the result of any injury which she received at the time of the accident. The contention of the plaintiff was that, when the car left the track, she rose in her seat, and assumed a standing position; that, when the car came to a full stop, the sudden shock threw her against the seat, which struck her back just below the shoulder blade; that the effect of this was to break her ninth rib, which penetrated the pleural cavity, and entered the tissue of the lung, which resulted in frequent hemorrhages, and ultimately in sepsis or blood poisoning; or, if the rib did not penetrate the lung, the sudden blow when she struck the car seat caused a similar injury to the tissue of the lung, which produced these results. On the other hand, the defendant contended that the plaintiff did not rise in her seat when the car was derailed, and could not have received any such injuries while sitting; that the hemorrhages and disease of her lung were the result of tuberculosis, or consumption, for which the accident was in no way responsible. The injury, if any, to the lung, not being the subject of ocular inspection, its nature and extent were necessarily somewhat a matter of opinion. The medical expert evidence was conflicting, as usual. But the fact remains that, according to the undisputed evidence, the plaintiff was a perfectly healthy woman up to the time of the accident; that hemorrhages and severe internal pains ensued almost immediately, followed by a diseased condition of the lung. The evidence was ample to justify the jury in finding that all these things were the proximate results of an injury which she received at the time of the accident; and, if so, then, in view of their very serious nature, it could not be successfully contended that a verdict of $2,500 was excessive.

2. The second assignment of error relates to the admission of a hypothetical question propounded to a medical expert, calling for his opinion as to the cause of plaintiff's condition, based upon the evidence as to ...