Landro v. Great Northern Railway Co.
| Decision Date | 24 March 1911 |
| Docket Number | 16,755 - (60) |
| Citation | 130 N.W. 553,114 Minn. 162 |
| Parties | OLE LANDRO v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Red Lake county to recover $10,000 for personal injuries. The answer was a general denial. The case was tried before Grindeland, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $6,500. From an order denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, it appealed. Reversed.
New trial -- excessive damages.
A new trial is granted upon the ground that the verdict is so excessive as to indicate passion or prejudice on the part of the jury.
John W Mason, James H. Maybury, and J. D. Sullivan, for appellant.
G Halvorson and Julius J. Olson, for respondent.
Respondent claimed to have suffered from a partial dislocation of the sacro-iliac joint in a wreck on appellant's railroad in February, 1909. He recovered a verdict of $6,500, and the only question we are required to consider is whether the verdict is so excessive that it appears to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice.
He was riding in a passenger car, and claims to have been thrown up from the seat by the shock, and that when he fell back he was struck by some part of the seat and injured. Soon after the accident, in answer to a question by the company surgeon whether he had been injured, he answered: "Was shaken up, and back a little stiff." A short statement of the evidence is as follows:
Respondent was thirty-eight years of age, and at the time of the accident weighed two hundred one pounds; at the time of the trial, two hundred four pounds. For two days after the accident he followed his occupation as traveling salesman, with headquarters at Thief River Falls, where he lived. He then returned home and consulted a doctor, who gave him some liniment. The company doctor also examined him. Neither one discovered any dislocation. In two weeks he started out on the road and worked until July, at which time he claimed to have been discharged. The record shows a lawsuit pending by him against his employer over the cause of his discharge. In August he was examined by Dr. Geist at Warren. Dr. Geist was a surgeon and practising physician in good standing at Minneapolis. He placed adhesive plasters over the parts claimed to be sore. Respondent wore these bandages for three weeks and then removed them.
The action was commenced early in August, and came on for trial November 29, 1909. A few days prior to the date of the trial he was examined in the presence of two physicians called as witnesses for him at the trial, and in the presence of six physicians called by the defense. The six...
To continue reading
Request your trial