Ewing v. Stickney

• Decision Date: 26 February 1909
• Citation: 107 Minn. 217,119 N.W. 802
• Parties: EWING v. STICKNEY et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

107 Minn. 217

119 N.W. 802

EWING

v.STICKNEY et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 26, 1909.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Grier M. Orr, Judge.

Action by Edmund E. Ewing against A. B. Stickney and others. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, but finding the damages excessive and ordering a new trial, unless plaintiff shall consent to a reduction, which he did, defendants appeal. Reversed, and new trial granted.

Syllabus by the Court

The plaintiff was injured while in the employ of the defendants as a yard switchman, and recovered in this action $9,125 damages on account of his injuries. The trial court granted a new trial unless the plaintiff consented to reduce his verdict to $7,000. He did so, and defendants appealed. Held, where the award of damages is so excessive as to indicate that they were given under the influence of passion or prejudice, and the circumstances are such as to show a fair probability that the jury were influenced by the same passion or prejudice in determining other issues that induced them to give excessive damages, a new trial should be granted absolutely.

In view of the excessive damages and the newly discovered evidence, the trial court should have granted a new trial absolutely, instead of reducing the damages. 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 25 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...