Murray v. Salt Lake City R. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 February 1898
• Docket Number: 884
• Citation: 52 P. 596,16 Utah 356
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: MARTIN MURRAY ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. SALT LAKE CITY RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLANT

52 P. 596

16 Utah 356

MARTIN MURRAY ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. SALT LAKE CITY RAILROAD COMPANY, APPELLANT

No. 884

Supreme Court of Utah

February 11, 1898

Appeal from the Third district court, Salt Lake county. A. N Cherry, Judge.

Action by Martin Murray and another against the Salt Lake City Railroad Company. Plaintiffs had judgment, and a motion for a new trial was denied. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

E. B Critchlow, for appellant.

Krebs &amp Hoppaugh, for respondents.

BARTCH, J. ZANE, C. J., and MINER, J., concur.

OPINION

BARTCH, J.:

This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received by the plaintiff, Honora Murray, while a passenger on defendant's car, because of the negligent operation thereof. The jury returned a verdict for $ 500 in favor of the plaintiffs, who are husband and wife. Judgment was entered accordingly, and a motion for a new trial denied. Thereupon the defendant appealed.

The principal contention on behalf of the appellant is that "the court, upon appellant's motion for a new trial should either have granted a new trial, or should have reduced the damages as excessive." By this proposition it is, in effect, conceded that the respondent is entitled to some damages, and the real substance of the contention is simply that the amount allowed by the verdict and judgment is excessive, under the evidence. The question of the amount of damages to be allowed in such a case is one of fact for the jury and the trial court to determine, and we cannot interfere with their judgment as to what sum shall be awarded, unless there is no legitimate proof in the record to sustain it. Mangum v. Mining Co., 15 Utah 534, 50 P. 834. Whether or not, under all the evidence, the court ought to have granted a new trial, it cannot be successfully maintained that there is no legitimate proof in the record to support the verdict and judgment. Mrs. Murray, who is one of the plaintiffs, and the party alleged to be injured, testified, among other things, that she, in company with Mrs. Phelps, stepped on defendant's car, but, before she could get inside, the motorman started the car with a sudden jerk, which threw her back on the back part of the car; that something struck her as she fell back; that the shock was so sudden that she could not tell exactly where it struck her, but she was struck in the small of the back; that she was pregnant at the time, and advanced from May 25 previous to September 12, 1894, when the accident happened; that prior to the accident she had good health; that after the accident she felt sick, was trembling all over, had pain in both sides of her abdomen down towards the groins, and a week afterwards had a hemorrhage; that thereafter she had two more hemorrhages, and was in poor health and sick from the time of the accident until the 12th of December following, when she...