Miller v. R.I. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 April 1912
• Citation: 82 A. 787
• Parties: MILLER v. RHODE ISLAND CO.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

82 A. 787

MILLER

v. RHODE ISLAND CO.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

April 11, 1912.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Darius Baker, Judge.

Action by Charles M. Miller against the Rhode Island Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, and the granting of a new trial upon conditions, both parties bring exceptions. Exceptions of defendant overruled, and of plaintiff sustained, and cause remitted, with direction.

Ralph M. Greenlaw and Waterman, Curran & Hunt, for plaintiff.

Joseph C. Sweeney and Clifford Whipple, for defendant.

PER CURIAM. In this case the jury returned a verdict for $20,800, and the justice presiding granted the defendant's motion for a new trial unless the plaintiff, within six days of the filing of the decision, should remit in writing all of the verdict in excess of $16,000. The exceptions argued, both of plaintiff and of defendant, are to said decision. The question before us therefore is: Were the damages excessive?

The judge in his rescript says that in his opinion "the jury could properly find upon the testimony that the plaintiff was permanently injured." He then proceeds to say: "The experts, however, failed to agree as to the precise nature of such injury. Whatever it may be, the weight of the testimony is in my judgment fairly against the claim of a permanent injury to the sacro-iliac joint. Dr. Howard, an orthopedic surgeon and a witness for the plaintiff, testified positively to such an injury. In this, however, he is not supported by Dr. Lovett, also a witness called by the plaintiff, or by Dr. Painter, a witness for the defendant. The experience and standing of the last two witnesses as orthopedic surgeons and their manner of testifying fairly entitled, in my opinion, their testimony as to a permanent injury to the sacro-iliac joint to be given greater weight than that of Dr. Howard."

An examination of the testimony discloses Dr. Lovett testifying: "The stiffness in the lower part of the spine, accompanied by the muscular rigidity and contraction, along with the limitation, not being able to bring the leg up straight, pointed to a condition of irritability at least in the lower spine and left sacro-iliac joint. * * * I think the injury to the back will not be wholly recovered from. * * * 57 Q. The important symptoms are the neurasthenic and the what? A. The stiffness and the muscular spasm and muscular contraction in the lower part of the spine, and the left sacro-iliac joint. * * * There was more or less tenderness over the whole back in that part, but it was most marked over the left sacro-iliac joint. * * * I think the joint is in a condition that I could perhaps best describe by speaking of it as a chronic sprain. * * * Why, I believe that the injury to his spine consists in an overstretching, an overbending, or a blow that caused an injury to the ligaments and joint structures, linings which compose the—which are situated between various vertebra? in the lower—between the various vertebrae in the lower half of the spine, with an injury of a similar character to the left sacro-iliac joint. * * * What I intended to testify was that in my opinion the injury or condition in the left sacro-iliac joint is complicated with a chronic sprain of the spine and with a condition of neurasthenia. 250 Q. Well, do you think that this same treatment can aid the sprain in the spine? A. I think it will aid the sprain in the spine yes. 251 Q. Why won't that repair the same way? A. Simply because they are very obstinate cases, in my experience, and I think add very much to the gravity of the outlook. 252 Q. And leads you to conclude that the injury is permanent? A. I shouldn't...