Hunt v. St. Paul City Railway Company

• Decision Date: 05 June 1903
• Docket Number: 13,404 - (90)
• Citation: 95 N.W. 312,89 Minn. 448
• Parties: WILLIAM E. HUNT v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY; SAME v. SAME
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

95 N.W. 312

89 Minn. 448

WILLIAM E. HUNT v. ST. PAUL CITY RAILWAY COMPANY;

SAME v. SAME

Nos. 13,404 - (90)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

June 5, 1903

Separate actions in the district court for Ramsey county, -- the first by plaintiff as father of Harriet Hunt, his minor child, to recover for her benefit $15,000 for personal injuries received by her in attempting to enter defendant's street car; the second by plaintiff to recover $2,500 for the loss of services of said child resulting from the same injuries. The cases were tried together before Kelly, J., and a jury, which rendered separate verdicts in favor of plaintiff, -- in the first action for $6,000 and in the second action for $1,000. From an order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in each case or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Evidence -- New Trial.

Held that the evidence in a personal injury case as to the manner in which the accident occurred was not so inherently unreasonable and improbable as to require the court below to grant a new trial upon hearing an alternative motion made by defendant's counsel after a verdict in plaintiff's favor.

Excessive Damages.

The jurors were justified in finding from the evidence that both the hearing and eyesight of a child ten years of age were permanently injured and impaired by the accident, and that other injuries were received by her at the same time. Held, that a verdict in her favor in the sum of $6,000 was not excessive, under such circumstances.

Munn & Thygeson, for appellant.

F. D. Larrabee and W. H. Barnet, for respondent.

OPINION

COLLINS, J.

These two actions were tried and submitted to the jury together. One of them was brought by the father of a minor daughter, about ten years of age when the accident happened, to recover damages personal to himself, and the other was brought to recover damages for the benefit of the child. In the action brought by the father in his own behalf, a verdict was rendered in the sum of $1,000, and in the other the verdict in favor of the plaintiff was for $6,000. It was alleged in the complaint that, while the girl was attempting to board one of defendant's cars in the city of St. Paul, the entrance and exit gates were violently and negligently shut and closed, whereby she was caught by them upon each side of her head, receiving severe and specified injuries, from which, it was claimed, she not only suffered great pain, but that her powers of hearing and seeing had been permanently and seriously impaired. The answer admitted that while the motioneer was in the act of closing the gates the child came in contact therewith, but denied that this was the result of any negligence or fault upon his part, and also denied, upon information and belief, that she had sustained any injuries by reason thereof.

Upon the trial the child testified as to the manner in which the accident happened -- that just as she put one foot upon the lower step of the car, and was leaning forward, the gates were violently and suddenly closed, whereby her head was caught upon each side just over the temples, and, further, that one of the gates struck her upon the left hip at the same time that her head was caught, as we understand it. Her mother testified that she was just behind the daughter, assisting her into the car; that she saw the gates close upon the child's head, and, as soon as possible, relieved her from the situation. She also testified that later on the child complained of an injury about the hip, and upon examination a black and blue spot was found on that part of the body. She also testified that the injuries received by the gate made a depression on each side of the child's head, and that the marks remained there for several days. There was medical testimony that marks were found upon the head several days after the accident, and about where the girl claimed that the gates struck her. There was further medical testimony, of an expert character, from which the jury had a right to conclude that there were depressions in the skull of the child, caused by the accident; and, in opposition to this, there was expert testimony from which the jury would have been warranted in finding to the contrary -- that the depressions referred to were congenital, and had not been accidentally caused. This difference of opinion between the medical witnesses made this question one for the jury.

1. As we understand the contention of counsel for appellant, their position is that the testimony of the mother and daughter as to the method in which this accident occurred made a case so unreasonable, incredible, and unbelievable that the trial court should have at least granted a new trial in response to their alternative motion made upon a settled case. It is argued that the physical facts surrounding the accident clearly and conclusively show that the gates could not have been closed, or the child's head injured by such closing, while she was in the position described by herself and her mother in their testimony, and therefore that the claim for injuries must be wholly rejected. In support of this contention, counsel cite Messenger v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 77 Minn. 34, 79 N.W. 583, and Schmeltzer v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 80 Minn. 50, 82 N.W. 1092. But these cases are not decisive of the present.

In the Messenger case there was no question but that the plaintiff fell upon the ground, just outside the gates; but it was impossible to credit her statement as to...