Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Law

• Citation: 21 S.W. 648
• Parties: LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. LAW.
• Decision Date: 07 March 1893
• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky

21 S.W. 648

LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. LAW.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 7, 1893

Appeal from circuit court, Warren county.

Not to be officially reported.

Action by T. E. Law against the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company for personal injuries caused by defendant's negligence. From a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Dulaney & Mitchell, for appellant.

Edward W. Hines, Thomas H. Hines, and B. F. Proctor, for appellee.

LEWIS J.

Appellee brought this action to recover damages for an injury to his left thumb, which was caught between the head of a coupling pin and end of a car while he was, as brakeman in employ of appellant, under orders of the conductor of a train uncoupling cars. It appears that on the day appellee was hurt an accommodation freight train left Bowling Green for Louisville, appellee being the middle brakeman. Forming parts of the train were three flat cars, loaded with ties, and to be left at Upton station; the front one being attached to the engine. But upon arrival at Bonnieville, a station about 10 miles from Upton, a box car destined for Louisville was put next to the engine, thereby requiring the flat car uncoupled which was done by the front brakeman, who then discovered the drawhead of that flat car was defective, and notified the conductor of the fact. Upon arrival of the train at Upton it became necessary to throw open the switch track in order to put the flat cars thereon, which the front brakeman did while appellee was directed to do the necessary uncoupling and while so engaged his thumb was so injured as necessitated amputation at the first joint from the end, and for that injury the jury returned a verdict of $2,000 in damages.

One of the grounds prescribed by section 340, Civil Code, for vacating the verdict of a jury and granting a new trial is excessive damages, appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice. It being the province of the jury to assess damages as well as try the facts, this court is not authorized, nor ever inclined, to disturb a verdict merely because damages may be so assessed for a greater amount than we think is entirely reasonable and just. But, as the statute has made it the duty of the court to do so whenever the condition provided for in section 340 exists we have no right to hesitate. In this case the amount of damages assessed is so utterly unreasonable and unjust, being at least four times more than it ought to have been, that the verdict clearly appears to us to have been given under the...