Lowe v. Armour Packing Co.

• Decision Date: 22 April 1921
• Docket Number: No. 22209.,22209.
• Citation: 148 Minn. 464,182 N.W. 610
• Parties: LOWE v. ARMOUR PACKING CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

148 Minn. 464

182 N.W. 610

LOWE

v.ARMOUR PACKING CO.

No. 22209.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 22, 1921.

Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; John H. Steele, Judge.

Action by Sinnie Lowe against the Armour Packing Company, a corporation. Judgment for plaintiff, and, from an order refusing new trial, defendant appeals. New trial granted unless plaintiff enter remittitur, and in that event order denying the same was affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

In a suit for personal injuries the burden is on the plaintiff to show with reasonable certainty the nature, extent and probable duration of his injuries.

Where the objective symptoms indicate that a full recovery has been made, a large verdict cannot be sustained on the ground that subjective symptoms described by the plaintiff indicate a continuance of ailments resulting from the injuries, unless the evidence furnishes a basis for determining, with reasonable certainty, the future consequences to be apprehended from such ailments and for saying that they will continue for a considerable time.

The verdict is held to be excessive and a new trial is granted unless plaintiff shall consent to reduce it to the sum of $1,500. A. A. Tenner, of Minneapolis, for appellant.

Olof L. Bruce, of Minneapolis, for respondent.

TAYLOR, C.

Plaintiff had a verdict of $2,500 for injuries sustained in an automobile collision, and defendant appeals from an order refusing a new trial. Defendant rests its appeal on the claim that the verdict is excessive.

At a street intersection in the city of Minneapolis, defendant's truck struck the side of an automobile in which plaintiff was riding. Plaintiff and a companion were in the rear seat, for companion being on the side struck by the truck. Plaintiff was evidently thrown against the back of the front seat and then fell or slid into the bottom of the automobile between the seats, although neither she nor any of the other witnesses were able to state exactly what happened. She was taken to a hospital where a dry bandage was placed around her head over a lump or swelling which had formed on her forehead, and she was then taken home. The next day she called another physician who found that a contusion on her forehead had produced a lump between her eyes and had caused the upper part of her face to turn black and blue; also that two teeth had been loosened (which were removed some months later); and also that she had sustained a bruise on her right knee which caused a black and blue spot about the size of a hand and another bruise on her left hip which caused a black and blue spot about twice that size. She complained of pain and soreness in the region at the lower end of the sternum and pit of the stomach and in the lower part of her back, also of nervousness and inability to sleep. The doctor gave her a sedative and a lotion with which to bathe her knee. He called once or twice afterward and communicated with her a few times by telephone. This was the extent of the medical attention she received. Some months before the trial she was examined by an expert engaged by defendant; a few days before the trial she was examined by another expert engaged by herself. The testimony of both was the same in substance, and to the effect that, in their opinion, plaintiff had suffered no structural, functional or permanent injuries, and that the objective symptoms ascertained by their own examination would lead to the conclusion that no abnormal condition then existed. She testified that she did not become able to do her housework until some six months after the accident; that she has had dizzy spells ever since the accident, which she attributes to the injury at the pit of her stomach; that her...