Ewing v. Stickney

• Decision Date: 26 February 1909
• Docket Number: Nos. 15,960-(241).,s. 15,960-(241).
• Citation: 107 Minn. 217
• Parties: EDWARD W. EWING v. ALPHEUS B. STICKNEY and Another.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

107 Minn. 217

EDWARD W. EWING v. ALPHEUS B. STICKNEY and Another.¹

Nos. 15,960-(241).

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

February 26, 1909.

Action in the district court for Ramsey county against the receivers of the Chicago Great Western Railway Company to recover $25,000

damages for personal injuries while plaintiff was in their employ. The case was tried before Orr, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $9,125. The court granted an order for a new trial, unless plaintiff filed his consent to a reduction of the verdict to $7,000. Plaintiff consented to the reduction and defendants appealed from the order. Reversed and new trial granted.

A. G. Briggs, W. J. Ainsworth, and T. P. McNamara, for appellants.

T. D. Sheehan, for respondent.

START, C. J.

The plaintiff, on the morning of January 12, 1908, entered the service of the defendants as a yard switchman in their yards at Clarion, Iowa. He was twenty five years old. On the night of the same day he was injured by reason of a defective engine and the negligence of the engineer operating it, who suddenly reversed the engine, thereby jerking the car on which the plaintiff was riding, throwing him therefrom, and causing his left hand to come in contact with the track and beneath the wheels of a car. His left hand was so crushed by the wheels that it was necessary to amputate the first and second fingers about an inch above the knuckle, and the hand was otherwise injured, so that for manual labor it will be of no practical use. This action was brought in the district court of the county of Ramsey to recover damages on account of such injuries. Verdict for $9,125. The defendants made a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was not justified by the evidence, that the damages were excessive, and on the further ground of newly discovered evidence. The trial court denied the motion for judgment, but found the damages excessive, and ordered a new trial unless the plaintiff would consent to a reduction of them to $7,000. The plaintiff so consented, and the defendants appealed from the order.

We are of the opinion that the question of the defendant's negligence was one of fact, and that upon the record the defendants were not entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict. As there must be a new trial, we refrain from discussing the evidence.

The contentions of the defendants that the damages were excessive and that a new trial should have been granted on account of newly discovered evidence are closely connected and will be considered together. The diminution of the plaintiff's earning capacity by reason of his injury was an important factor in the assessment of his damages, and the amount he was earning before he was disabled was a weighty element for the consideration of the jury. Thompson v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 79 Minn. 291, 82 N. W. 637. Again, where the award of damages in any case is so excessive as to indicate that they were given under the influence of...