Hall v. Cedar Rapids & M. C. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 21 October 1901 |
| Citation | 115 Iowa 18,87 N.W. 739 |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
| Parties | HALL v. CEDAR RAPIDS & M. C. RY. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Linn county; Wm. G. Thompson, Judge.
Action at law to recover damages for personal injuries received by plaintiff while alighting from a car owned and operated by defendant company. There was a trial by jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.W. E. Steele and Powell & Harmon, for appellant.
W. H. Storrs and E. C. Preston, for appellee.
The instruction relating to the measure of plaintiff's recovery in the event the jury found in her favor was as follows: “In estimating the damages, if any you find, you will allow plaintiff for any physical suffering and pain and mental anguish, if any, she has suffered and shown in evidence, or which she may in the future suffer, if any, in consequence of the alleged injury, and a reasonable allowance for any physician's bills, if any, she has expended in consequence of said injury, and shown in evidence, but not to exceed the amount claimed in plaintiff's petition.” This instruction was clearly erroneous, in that it permitted the jury to enter into the realm of speculation regarding plaintiff's future suffering. Such a charge has frequently been disapproved by this court. Fry v. Railway Co., 45 Iowa, 417;Reed v. Railroad Co., 57 Iowa, 25, 10 N. W. 285;Stafford v. City of Oskaloosa, 57 Iowa, 751, 11 N. W. 668;Ford v. City of Des Moines, 106 Iowa, 96, 75 N. W. 630. It was not cured, even if it could be, by any subsequent instruction. But plaintiff insists that defendant may not complain, because it asked no instructions relating to the subject. If the instruction had been good as given, defendant could not, in the absence of request, complain of it. But it was the duty of the trial court, in giving its instructions, to announce correct principles of law. If it erred in this respect, failure of defendant to ask proper ones will not cure the error. These rules are fundamental, and need no citation of authorities in their support.
2. In the fourth instruction the court said: “As applied in this case, the negligence charged in plaintiff's petition against the defendant, if it has, under the facts and circumstances shown in evidence, omitted to do something which an ordinarily careful person would do, or has done something which an ordinarily careful person would omit, under the circumstances, then you will be warranted in...
To continue reading
Request your trial