Taylor v. Chi. & N. W. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 April 1899 |
| Citation | 79 N.W. 17,103 Wis. 27 |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
| Parties | TAYLOR v. CHICAGO & N. W. RY. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Outagamie county; John Goodland, Judge.
Action by Jane M. Taylor against the Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.Fish, Cary, Upham & Black, for appellant.
O'Connor, Hammel & Schmitz, for respondent.
This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff in a rear-end collision at West Chicago on the night of June 29-30, 1897. Issue being joined, and trial had, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $12,000, when, on motion for a new trial, in part upon the ground that the damages were excessive, the court ordered that, unless the plaintiff should remit from the verdict $2,000, a new trial should be granted, but, in case of such remission the verdict should stand at $10,000; and, the plaintiff having made such remission, judgment was entered thereon for $10,000 and costs, from which the defendant brings this appeal.
It appears from the uncontradicted evidence that June 29, 1897, the plaintiff purchased of the defendant a first-class passenger ticket from Appleton, by way of Chicago, to San Francisco; that the defendant received the plaintiff in one of its passenger cars at Appleton; that while the plaintiff, as such passenger, occupied a berth in one of defendant's sleeping cars, and while the train was on the company's track near a station known as “West Chicago,” about 30 miles from Chicago, the train upon which the plaintiff was so riding collided with, and was run into at the rear end by, another passenger train of the defendant, and the car in which the plaintiff was so riding was thereby telescoped, and the plaintiff was crowded and for some time firmly pinned in and held under the broken timbers and other materials of which the car was constructed; that she was unable to extricate herself therefrom, and was firmly held under the débris until the broken timbers and other material could be removed by persons engaged in clearing away the wreck; that by reason thereof the plaintiff was severely and seriously injured; that at the time of the trial (one year after the injury) she was still in a helpless condition, and suffered great pain, caused by such injuries; that up to the time of receiving such injuries she was a strong, vigorous, and ablebodied woman; that it was found that the muscles of her left leg were badly bruised, her knees injured so as to cause her great pain, and she complained of pain in her head, back and knee; that after she had rested half an hour, and found no bones broken, and believing that she had only been severely jammed in and crowded between the timbers, she was assisted into another car, and continued her journey to California; that from the place of the collision to Council Bluffs she occupied a sleeper; that at Council Bluffs she stayed overnight at the railway station; that she was assisted from the car to the hotel, and the next morning from the hotel to the car; that she was then still suffering a great deal of pain, and could not get her hands together, nor to her head, but proceeded on her journey; that her pain continued to increase, especially in her back; that at Ogden, Utah, she had to be assisted on and off the train; that she reached her brother's, in California, and remained there about 10 weeks, but was helpless, and so continued, and her pains continued, principally in her back, side, back of her neck, shoulder, and in her head; that she is unable to get up or down stairs without being carried; that the reason she cannot walk is because her back is weak and painful; that the use of her arms or shoulders hurts her back; that, in attempting to walk, she shuffles her feet along; that since the injury she has, at times, had bloody discharges of the bowels.
The negligence of the defendant is admitted, and the important question for consideration is the measure of damages. The defendant contends that the damages allowed are grossly excessive, and insists that remarks of the plaintiff's counsel on the trial, and to which timely objections and exceptions were taken, had the direct tendency to unduly inflame the passions of the jury so as to produce the result. The counsel for the plaintiff, in his opening statement to the jury, stated, in effect, that the pain was such as no member of the jury, himself, or the defendant's counsel would suffer any length of time. Upon an objection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Renne v. U.S. Leather Co.
...v. Railroad Co., 82 Wis. 613, 638, 52 N. W. 247, 1136;Donovan v. Railway Co., 93 Wis. 373, 377, 67 N. W. 721;Taylor v. Railway Co., 103 Wis. 27, 32, 79 N. W. 17;Baxter v. Railway Co., 104 Wis. 307, 333-336, 80 N. W. 644;Crouse v. Railway Co., 104 Wis. 473, 486, 80 N. W. 752. By reason of su......
-
Affett v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transport Corp.
...Wis. 485, 489, 242 N.W. 184, 186, ('There is not a man of you that would trade his left hip for $30,000'); Taylor v. Chicago & Northwestern R. Co., 1899, 103 Wis. 27, 30, 79 N.W. 17 (a statement to the effect that the plaintiff was not asking too much when she measured her damages at $25,00......
-
Walker v. Simmons Mfg. Co.
...record we cannot say that the verdict is excessive. Berg v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 50 Wis. 419, 7 N. W. 347;Taylor v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 103 Wis. 27, 79 N. W. 17;Schultz v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 48 Wis. 375, 4 N. W. 399;Karasich v. Hasbrouck et al., 28 Wis. 569;Baltzer v. ......
-
Wankowski v. Crivitz Pulp & Paper Co.
...841;Horn v. La Crosse B. Co., 123 Wis. 399, 101 N. W. 935;Thompson v. Edward P. Allis Co., 89 Wis. 523, 62 N. W. 527;Taylor v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 103 Wis. 27, 79 N. W. 17.Charles A. Vilas, for appellant.W. B. Quinlan (P. H. Martin, of counsel), for respondent.TIMLIN, J. (after stating the ......