Louisville S.R. Co. v. Minogue

• Decision Date: 13 September 1890
• Citation: 90 Ky. 369,14 S.W. 357
• Parties: LOUISVILLE SOUTH. R. CO. v. MINOGUE.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

14 S.W. 357

90 Ky. 369

LOUISVILLE SOUTH. R. CO. v. MINOGUE.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

September 13, 1890

Appeal from circuit court, Shelby county.

"To be officially reported."

L. C Willis, E. Frazier, and Thos. W. Bullitt, for appellant.

Gilbert & Force, Matt O'Doherty, and R. C. Davis, for appellee.

HOLT C.J.

A train of the appellant was delayed by the air-brakes failing to work. It was overtaken by a construction train of the company, which was known to those in charge of the passenger-train to be but a few minutes behind it, and a collision occurred, the only damage to the passenger-train being the destruction of the rear platform of its rear car. The appellee, Mary J. Minogue, who was a passenger upon it was by the jar of the collision thrown from her seat to the floor of the car in which she was riding; and for the injuries she thereby sustained she brought this action for damages, averring that they resulted from the gross neglect of the appellant's agents who were operating the trains. It is claimed this neglect consisted in failing to exercise care in flagging the coming train. The evidence is somewhat conflicting as to whether this was done in time to have enabled it to stop before overtaking the passenger train; but whether the fault lay in neglect in this respect, or in the rear train, if it had sufficient notice to enable it to do so, failing to check up, need not be considered, because whether the one or the other, the testimony is of such a character as authorized the question of the existence or non-existence of gross neglect upon the part of the company's agents to be submitted to the jury. They returned a verdict for $10,000. It is urged that this verdict is, in view of the evidence, so excessive that, conceding it embraces both compensatory and punitive damages, yet this court should reverse the judgment. The existence of ordinary neglect in such a case authorizes compensatory damages, while gross neglect permits the jury to award those which are both compensatory and punitive. In this instance, the jury, if they thought proper, were authorized by the instructions to find both. Whether they have gone beyond a reasonable limit must be determined by the conduct of the company's agents connected with the accident, and the character of the appellee's injuries. While the rule for the measurement of compensatory damages leaves the matter largely to the discretion of the jury, yet the finding must be within the confines of reason. So, too, must exemplary damages be reasonably adequate to the degree of fault. The appellee sustained external bruises, and her nervous system was greatly shocked. There is evidence tending to show, however that it had been somewhat impaired by previous events. Inmmediately after the accident, she walked to a friend's house near by, and soon after rode home in a vehicle, a distance of several miles. She was confined to her bed for seven or eight weeks, and suffered from nervousness and sleeplessness. Since she left her bed, she has walked about her room, and been to town once or twice, but has been unable to do any work. The accident occurred in...