Holland v. Yellow Cab Co.

• Decision Date: 09 January 1920
• Docket Number: No. 21499.,21499.
• Parties: HOLLAND v. YELLOW CAB CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

144 Minn. 475

175 N.W. 536

HOLLAND

v.YELLOW CAB CO.

No. 21499.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 9, 1920.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Chas. S. Jelley, Judge.

Action by Nellie Holland against the Yellow Cab Company, Incorporated. Judgment for plaintiff, and, from a denial of a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.L. O. Rue, of Minneapolis, for appellant.

John O. Loeffler and Wm. A. Tautges, both of Minneapolis, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

[1] A taxicab going east of Eleventh street in the city of Minneapolis and a touring car going north on Marquette avenue collided where these two streets intersect at right angles. Plaintiff was seated in the rear seat of the touring car, and claims to have wrenched her back from the jolt of the collision. The jury awarded her damages, and defendant, the owner of the taxicab, appeals from the order denying a new trial. The witnesses for plaintiff testified that the taxicab was approaching the intersection at about twice the speed the touring car was approaching it, and that the touring car passed the south line of Eleventh street when the taxicab was some 30 or 40 feet west of the west line of Marquette avenue. The witnesses for defendant testify to exactly the reverse as to the relative speed and position of the two cars as they entered or approached the intersection. There were four witnesses on each side as to the occurrence of the collision. It is clear that upon such conflicting testimony this court has no right to vacate the verdict, finding defendant negligent and plaintiff free from negligence, approved as it is by the trial court.

Nor can we say that the damages, as reduced, are excessive. The injury is located by plaintiff and her medical experts in the sacro-iliac joint, a part of the human anatomy sufficiently obscure in its functioning to have given rise, of late, for a workable combination between a plaintiff's subjective symptoms and medical experts' opinions to draw large verdicts from jurors. And in this case, it might well be doubted that plaintiff was injured as and to the extent claimed by her from the fact that, within a few months after the injury, she participated in such vigorous exercise as dancing; for we understand that an injury to this joint affects locomotion. But, after all, we must, on the question of such injuries and compensation therefor, defer to the judgment of the jurors and the trial court, who, in addition to knowledge of this dancing episode,...