Madole v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 23 January 1925
• Docket Number: No. 24457.,24457.
• Citation: 161 Minn. 535,201 N.W. 937
• Parties: MADOLE v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

201 N.W. 937

161 Minn. 535

MADOLE v. CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.

No. 24457.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

January 23, 1925.

Appeal from District Court, Steel County; Fred W. Senn, Judge.

Action by Glen G. Madole against the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

O'Brien, Horn & Stringer, of St. Paul, for appellant.

Leach & Leach, of Owatonna, and Davis & Michael and E. S. Cary, all of Minneapolis, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, 23 years of age, is married, has one child, and, at the time of his injury, lived at Iowa Falls, in the state of Iowa. He had been in the employ of defendant at that place as car inspector for about 15 months. On December 13, 1923, while in the act of adjusting a defective coupling between two cars, the locomotive, without warning, backed up and pushed the cars together in such a manner that plaintiff's hand was injured so as to necessitate amputation above the wrist. Plaintiff was first taken to a hospital in Iowa Falls, and then to a hospital in Chicago, where he remained until December 26th, during which time he suffered much pain and agony. On that day his left arm was amputated above the wrist. The wound did not heal properly. On January 5th he was removed to a hospital in Minneapolis, where he remained until the latter part of February when a second amputation was made. During this time several incisions were made in the arm for the purpose of drainage. Thereafter the arm healed up, but his elbow remained stiff. He suffered a great deal of pain.

The only question presented by this appeal is the amount of the verdict. The trial appears to have been fair. The evidence was given to the jury without any apparent disturbing event. We find nothing in the record unusual or tending to create any prejudice in the minds of the jury. The verdict was for $15,000, which is a large amount of money. We discover no reason for interference with the verdict by this court. It was approved by the trial court.

Affirmed.