Paterson v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company
| Decision Date | 26 May 1905 |
| Docket Number | 14,387 - (79) |
| Citation | 103 N.W. 621,95 Minn. 57 |
| Parties | F. A. B. PATERSON v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Martin county, Quinn, J., denying a motion for a new trial, after a trial and verdict in favor of plaintiff for $400. Affirmed.
Carrier -- Deposition.
Action against a carrier to recover damages for injuries to an automobile by its alleged negligence in transporting it. Held, that the court did not err in ruling upon the competency of witness as to value; that a party who is represented at the taking of a deposition cannot object for the first time on the trial that it was taken in narrative form; and, further, that the court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss, nor in its instructions to the jury.
Mathwig & Sasse, for appellant.
Albert R. Allen and De Forrest Ward, for respondent.
Action to recover damages which the plaintiff alleged that he had sustained by the negligence of the defendant as a common carrier in transporting his automobile from Chicago to Fairmont, this state. The automobile was purchased by the plaintiff in Myersdale, Pennsylvania, and on March 25, 1903 it was loaded in good condition by the seller upon a car of the Baltimore & Ohio Railway Company, and transported by that carrier to Chicago, there, by a connecting carrier, the Belt Line Railway Company, it was delivered to the defendant for transportation over its line to Fairmont. When it was delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff at Fairmont, it was in a broken and seriously damaged condition. The answer put in issue the extent of the injuries to the automobile, the amount of the plaintiff's damages, and alleged that it was injured and broken when it was delivered to the defendant, and that it was delivered to the plaintiff in the same condition that it was when the defendant received it. A trial of the action resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $400, and the defendant appealed from an order denying its motion for a new trial.
The first group of alleged errors relate to the rulings of the trial court as to the admission of evidence. Four witnesses testified on behalf of the plaintiff as to the value of the automobile before and after it was injured, two of whom were the plaintiff and the former owner of the automobile of whom it was purchased. The trial court, over the objection of the defendant, ruled that each of the witnesses was competent to testify as to the value of the automobile. It is here urged that the rulings were erroneous. The question of the competency of the witnesses was a preliminary one, which was largely within the discretion of the trial judge, and his decision thereon will not be reversed on appeal if there is any evidence fairly tending to sustain it. Meyers v. McAllister, 94 Minn. 510, 103 N.W. 564. The plaintiff and the party of whom he purchased the automobile were clearly competent to testify as to its value. The evidence as to the competency of the other two witnesses, while not as satisfactory, was nevertheless sufficient to sustain the findings of the court on the question.
Evidence was also given by the plaintiff as to the feasibility and cost of repairing the automobile. This is also urged as error, because the witnesses were not competent to give an opinion upon the question, and, further, that the evidence was not relevant, because the measure of damages was the difference in the value of the automobile before it was injured and after it was injured. This is a correct statement of the rule for ascertaining the damages, and was the rule given by the court to the jury by which they were to assess the damages. The jury found the damages materially greater than any witness estimated the cost of repairing the automobile. The defendant offered no evidence as to the value of the automobile either before or after the injury. It therefore conclusively appears that the defendant was not injured by the evidence as to the feasibility and cost of repairing the automobile; hence it is immaterial whether or not the evidence was properly received.
The deposition of the party of whom the automobile was purchased was received in evidence over the objection of the defendant to the effect that it was not taken in the form of questions and answers, but in narrative form. The defendant was represented at the taking of the deposition, and cross-examined the witness,...
To continue reading
Request your trial