Quinn v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company

• Decision Date: 13 February 1925
• Docket Number: 24,357
• Citation: Quinn v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, 162 Minn. 87, 202 N.W. 275 (Minn. 1925)
• Parties: JAMES P. QUINN v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

202 N.W. 275

162 Minn. 87

JAMES P. QUINN v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY

No. 24,357

Supreme Court of Minnesota

February 13, 1925

Action for $35,000 transferred to the district court for Ramsey county. The case was tried before Olin B. Lewis, J., and a jury which returned a verdict for $21,000. Defendant's motion for a new trial was denied on condition plaintiff consected to a reduction of the verdict to $16,000. From the order denying a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Verdict for $16,000, in favor of switchman permanently incapacitated for his employment, sustained.

This court will not set aside a verdict of $16,000, on the ground that it so excessive as to indicate passion and prejudice on the part of the jury, where the plaintiff was a railroad switchman, 39 years old, earning $175 a month, and suffered a serious injury to his left arm and hand which, in the opinion of his medical witnesses, was permanent in its nature and will always disable him from following his former occupation.

* Headnote 1. See Damages, 17 C.J. p. 1101, § 425.

F. W Root, C. O. Newcomb and A. C. Erdall, for appellant.

Tom Davis, Ernest A. Michel and McMeekin, Quinn & Swan, for respondent.

OPINION

LEES C.

Action for damages for personal injuries. Plaintiff obtained a verdict for $21,000, consented to a reduction of $5,000, and defendant has appealed from an order denying its motion for a new trial. The sole question is whether the verdict as reduced is so excessive as to require a new trial unless plaintiff consents to a further reduction.

At the time of his injury, plaintiff was a switchman, 39 years old and earning $175 a month. While endeavoring to adjust a defective lock block in the coupler or a freight car, his left arm was caught between the couplers and badly crushed. The defective lock block made it necessary for him to go between the cars to make the coupling. It is conceded that defendant had failed to comply with the requirements of the Federal Safety Appliance Act, and there is no question about plaintiff's right of recovery.

Immediately after the accident, plaintiff was taken to a hospital for treatment. His left thumb was amputated, and then an attempt was made to set the bones in the forearm, both of which were broken. Thirteen days later an incision was made in the forearm and the ends of one of the broken bones were fastened together with a screw plate. A little later there was a third operation, and the ends of the other bone were fastened together with kangaroo tendons. Before he was injured, plaintiff had the normal use of his left arm and hand, except a slight stiffness in the little finger from a previous injury.

Plaintiff called two physicians as witnesses, one of whom testified that plaintiff's ability to bend the forearm had been substantially impaired; that he had lost practically all power of pronation and supination; that there was hardly any movement at the wrist joint; that the fingers of the left hand could not be fully closed; that the muscles between the elbow and shoulder were shrunken; that there was an unnatural swelling in the forearm; and that the hand and lower half of the forearm were cold and had an abnormal color. This testimony was based on an examination made about 4 months before the trial. A subsequent examination, made immediately before the trial, disclosed conditions but little changed although the movement of the fingers was better, the muscles of the arm were...