Wade v. Houston & S. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 June 1916
• Docket Number: 20582
• Citation: 72 So. 220,139 La. 759
• Parties: WADE v. HOUSTON & S. R. CO
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

72 So. 220

139 La. 759

WADE v. HOUSTON & S. R. CO

No. 20582

Supreme Court of Louisiana

June 6, 1916

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1916

SYLLABUS

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Where the jury awarded the plaintiff $ 6,600 for a trauma or bruise, evidenced by no outward signs and there is no sufficient medical evidence to prove, with reasonable certainty, that the bruise produced any serious internal injury, the amount of the award will be reduced to a sum commensurate with the damage actually sustained. Where no cause for the derailment of a passenger coach is proven, the presumption is that the railroad company was negligent.

Wise Randolph, Rendall & Freyer, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Otis W. Bullock, of Shreveport, for appellee.

OPINION

LAND, J.

Plaintiff sued the defendant for damages in the sum of $ 10,000, for alleged personal injuries sustained by the derailment of the coach in which he was riding as a passenger at the time. The petition alleges that the derailment was caused by a defective track, defective trucks, and equipments of the coach, and high rate of speed of the train; that the train stopped suddenly and with a great jerk, throwing petitioner violently and with great force against a seat and upon the floor of the coach, shaking him up, bruising his body, spraining and otherwise injuring his spine, back and hips; that he was confined to his bed for several weeks, and was caused to suffer great physical pain and mental anguish; that he has been regularly treated by physicians, is still disabled, and that his said injuries are permanent.

Defendant, answering, denied the alleged negligence charged in the petition, but admitted that on the date alleged, while one of its passenger trains was running at a very moderate speed near its depot, one pair of wheels on a coach left the rails and ran along on the ground about 20 or 25 feet.

Defendant specially denied that plaintiff was injured as alleged by the sudden stopping and jerking of the coach, and averred that as a matter of fact the derailment caused no sudden jerking or violent movement of the car sufficient to shake up, jar, or injure any one.

The case was tried before a jury, which, after considering the mass of evidence adduced, consisting largely of the testimony of surgeons and physicians, found for the plaintiff as follows:

Permanent damages

$ 5,000.00

Physical pain and mental anguish

850.00

Loss of time

750.00

Drugs and medical attention

None

$ 6,600.00

Defendant moved for a new trial, which was overruled by the trial judge for reasons assigned. Our learned brother below found that the evidence for the defendant did not show or explain the cause of the derailment, and quoted from Reems v. New Orleans, 126 La. 511, 52 So. 681, as follows:

'The evidence adduced by the defendant fails to show the cause of the accident, and, in the absence of such explanation, the court is unable to say that the accident resulted from circumstances against which human foresight and care could not guard. Trucks do not leave the rails without some physical cause, such as defects in the trucks, or in the track, or some fault in the operation of the train.'

The judge further said:

'As to whether or not the derailment caused the injury, this court is not prepared to say that the jury made a mistake. The expert testimony introduced has served no useful purpose except to muddy the waters. The plaintiff is seemingly in bad physical condition, and it would take more testimony than that adduced on this trial to cause this court to assert that plaintiff is suffering from 'railway spine,' the only cure for which is said to be a 'verdict of the jury.'

'Perhaps the verdict is somewhat excessive, not excessive of the actual injuries, but excessive as to the specific allegations of injury. However, that is a matter which can be corrected in the upper court, if that court sees fit.'

Defendant has appealed, and its principal contention at the bar is that the evidence shows that the derailment of the coach did not and could not have caused the injuries described in the petition.

It is admitted that the plaintiff was a passenger on the coach which was derailed, and that ...