Newell v. Detroit, T. & I. R. Co., 139.

• Decision Date: 22 July 1926
• Docket Number: No. 139.,139.
• Citation: 209 N.W. 813,235 Mich. 687
• Parties: NEWELL v. DETROIT, T. & I. R. CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

235 Mich. 687

209 N.W. 813

NEWELL

v.DETROIT, T. & I. R. CO.

No. 139.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

July 22, 1926.

Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; Ira W. Jayne, Judge.

Action by Thomas Newell against the Detroit, Toledo & Ironton Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed on condition of remittur.

See, also, 232 Mich. 528, 205 N. W. 579.

Argued before the Entire Court.Clifford B. Longley, O. Z. Ide, and Edgar J. Matz, all of Detroit, for appellant.

Thomas L. Dalton and Frederick P. Hempel, both of Detroit, for appellee.

BIRD, C. J.

Plaintiff, while in the employ of the defendant in its railroad shops, received an injury to his eye, which resulted in the loss of it. The eyeball was removed and a glass eye inserted in its stead. Plaintiff recovered a judgment, on the theory that he was not furnished a proper tool with which to do the work in hand. The case was here after a former trial. It was pointed out what the issue of fact was to go to the jury, and the same has been tried again, resulting in a verdict for plaintiff of $25,000. The former opinion of this court will be found in 232 Mich. 528, 205 N. W. 579.

Defendant has assigned several errors. Among them the question is raised that the verdict of the jury is excessive. After an examination of the record and briefs, we are persuaded that the meritorious question is: Was the verdict excessive?

Plaintiff was 24 years old at the time of the accident. He was a boilermaker and a ship fitter by trade. He had been employed at a large per diem in the shipyards at Halifax soon after landing on this side of the water. It was following the war and he received a high wage. At defendant's boiler shop he was receiving $5 per day with a promise of a raise after six months. After the injury he was offered a place at bench work in the same shop at the same wages. It was shown that he was not incapacitated to follow his trade, but he refrained from entering it again for fear of losing the other eye. He did, however, indicate that he might have some trouble reading blueprints, which he would encounter in his regular trade.

Some of the cases in which the damages for the loss of an eye have been considered are: Ribich v. Lake Superior Smelting Co., 123 Mich. 401, 82 N. W. 279,48 L. R. A. 649, 81 Am. St. Rep. 215;Shaw v. Railway, 123 Mich. 629, 82 N. W. 618,49 L. R. A. 308, 81 Am. St. Rep. 230; Delavergne, etc., v. Stahl, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 471, 60 S. W. 319;Herricks v. Railway, 180 Ill. App. 565. See, also, valuable note on excessive damages for the loss of an eye in L. R. A. 1915F, 196.

Without analyzing the foregoing cases in detail, it will suffice to say that we are of the opinion that the verdict,...