Evans v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company
| Citation | 158 N.W. 335,133 Minn. 293 |
| Decision Date | 16 June 1916 |
| Docket Number | 19,841 - (205) |
| Parties | DAVID T. EVANS v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY AND OTHERS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county against defendant corporation, Edward L. Lampman and Michael G. Davy, to recover $22,400 for personal injury received while a passenger upon defendant's train. The answer alleged that the injury to plaintiff was caused by his want of due care. The case was tried before Steele, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of defendant. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Reversed.
Carrier -- injury to passenger -- damages not affected by accident insurance.
1. In an action by a passenger against a carrier for personal injuries, it is error to receive evidence that he carried accident insurance and realized thereon for his injuries to diminish or defeat a recovery.
New trial granted because of prejudicial evidence.
2. When such evidence is stricken by the court on its own motion and the jury directed to disregard it, the error is ordinarily cured, the presumption being that prejudice did not result but, when it appears that prejudice resulted, the error is not cured and a new trial should be granted; and in this case it is held that prejudice resulted.
Hand of plaintiff not admissible evidence.
3. The court correctly refused to receive in evidence the amputated hand of the plaintiff.
A. D Evans and Mead & Bryngelson, for appellant.
F. W. Root and Nelson J. Wilcox, for respondent.
Action for personal injuries. Verdict for the defendant. Appeal by the plaintiff from an order denying his motion for a new trial.
1. The plaintiff was a passenger on a night train of the defendant from Minneapolis to Owatonna. He claims that as he was on the platform passing from the smoker to another coach, just as the train was leaving Minnehaha Falls, he slipped and fell down the steps, and, in trying to save himself, was thrown under the coach. His hand was crushed. Afterwards it was amputated at the wrist. The evidence was such as to sustain a verdict in his favor.
On the cross-examination of the plaintiff, the defendant was permitted to show, over his objection, that he had received $5,000 on policies of accident insurance covering his injury. The purpose was to reduce or defeat his recovery, upon the theory that the larger the amount he received from insurance the less was the loss for which he could recover of the defendant. The receipt by one injured through the negligence of another of the proceeds of accident policies does not defeat nor diminish his recovery of the tort feasor. The principle is illustrated where death results from an injury, the deceased having a life policy, and where property is damaged, the owner having a fire policy. The holdings are not uncertain and the cases are of ample number. See 15 Cent. Dig. Damages, § 113; 7 Dec. Dig. Damages, § 64; 15 Cent. Dig. Death, § 101; 7 Dec. Dig. Death, § 91; 3 Sedgwick, Damages (9th ed.) § 860; 1 Sutherland, Damages (3d ed.) § 158; 3 Hutchinson, Carriers (3d ed.) § 1423; 8 Am. & Eng. Enc. 690; 13 Cyc. 70. The court was in error in receiving the testimony.
2. After the plaintiff had rested and the defendant had opened to the jury the court, deeming the testimony erroneously admitted, of its own motion struck it out and directed the jury to disregard it. Ordinarily such action of the court cures the error, the presumption being that prejudice did not result. Hillestad v. Hostetter, 46 Minn. 393, 49 N.W. 192; Town of Wells v. Sullivan, 125 Minn. 353 147 N.W. 244; 2 Dunnell, Minn. Dig. §§ 7206-7207. But, if the testimony is of a character naturally affecting the feelings or sympathies or bias of the jury and it appears that prejudice resulted, the error is not cured. State v. Yates, 99 Minn. 461, 109 N.W. 1070; Strasser v. Stabeck, 112 Minn. 90, 127 N.W. 384; Salo v. Duluth & Iron Range...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Table of Cases
...Hale, 752 So.2d 1113 (Ala. 1999), §3.400 Evans-Reid v. District of Columbia, 930 A.2d 930 (D.C., 2007), §21.413(a) Evans v. Chicago Ry., 133 Minn. 293, 158 N.W. 335 (1916), §33.201 Evans v. City of Natchitoches , 927 So.2d 608 (La.App. 2006), §22.420(d) Evans v. Toledo Neurological Associat......
-
Table of Cases
...Hale, 752 So.2d 1113 (Ala. 1999), §3.400 Evans-Reid v. District of Columbia, 930 A.2d 930 (D.C., 2007), §21.413(a) Evans v. Chicago Ry., 133 Minn. 293, 158 N.W. 335 (1916), §33.201 Evans v. City of Natchitoches , 927 So.2d 608 (La.App. 2006), §22.420(d) Everett v. State , 835 So.2d 118 (Mis......
-
Table of Cases
...Hale, 752 So.2d 1113 (Ala. 1999), §3.400 Evans-Reid v. District of Columbia, 930 A.2d 930 (D.C., 2007), §21.413(a) Evans v. Chicago Ry., 133 Minn. 293, 158 N.W. 335 (1916), §33.201 Evans v. City of Natchitoches , 927 So.2d 608 (La.App. 2006), §22.420(d) Evans v. Toledo Neurological Associat......
-
People
...of possession becomes a very important factor, since mix-ups are known to occur. 15 Contamination, delays, 11 Evans v. Chicago Ry ., 133 Minn. 293, 158 N.W. 335 (1916). 12 Sizemore v. State, 387 S.W.3d 824 (Tex.App., 2012). In a defendant’s conviction for aggravated assault, the jury was fr......