Waterman v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Company

• Decision Date: 20 November 1913
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

145 N.W. 19

26 N.D. 540

MARY C. WATERMAN v. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL & SAULT STE. MARIE RAILWAY COMPANY, a Corporation

Supreme Court of North Dakota

November 20, 1913

Rehearing denied January 19, 1914.

Appeal from District Court, Logan County, J. A. Coffey, J.

From a judgment in plaintiff's favor, and from an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals.

Reversed and a new trial ordered.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered.

John L Erdall, S.E. Ellsworth, and Geo. M. McKenna (Alfred H Bright, of counsel), for appellant.

A new trial should be granted because excessive damages appear to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice. Partello v. Missouri P. R. Co. 217 Mo. 645, 117 S.W 1138; Creve Coeur Lake Ice Co. v. Tamm, 90 Mo.App. 202; Chlanda v. St. Louis Transit Co. 213 Mo. 244, 112 S.W. 249.

A new trial should always be granted where the verdict is so grossly excessive as to lead to the conclusion that it must have been reached through undue passion or prejudice of the jury. Johnson v. Great Northern R. Co. 107 Minn. 285, 119 N.W. 1061; Landro v. Great Northern R. Co. 114 Minn. 162, 130 N.W. 553; Bucher v. Wisconsin C. R. Co. 139 Wis. 597, 120 N.W. 518; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Reaume, 128 Ky. 90, 107 S.W. 290; Gibney v. St. Louis Transit Co. 204 Mo. 704, 103 S.W. 43.

If plaintiff was suffering from a real trouble or disease, the great preponderance of the evidence proves that it was functional or subjective, and not organic, and no large verdict should be permitted to stand, based upon such testimony. Johnson v. Great Northern R. Co. 107 Minn. 285, 119 N.W. 1061; Depow v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 151 Wis. 109, 138 N.W. 43; Bucher v. Wisconsin C. R. Co. 139 Wis. 597, 120 N.W. 518; Robinson v. Spokane Traction Co. 47 Wash. 303, 91 P. 972; Schwartzbauer v. Great Northern R. Co. 112 Minn. 356, 128 N.W. 286; Oberg v. Northern P. R. Co. 136 F. 981.

The verdict cannot stand because the evidence fails to establish the fact, to a certainty, that the disease or trouble of which plaintiff complains will be permanent. Landro v. Great Northern R. Co. 114 Minn. 162, 130 N.W. 553; Fleming v. Lobel, N.J.L. , 59 A. 28, 17 Am. Neg. Rep. 324; Kanen v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. 70 N.J.L. 619, 57 A. 268, 16 Am. Neg. Rep. 127.

Plaintiff has never received that care or medical treatment which would be likely to effect a cure in such a case. The opinions of the experts for the plaintiff, that she was permanently injured, were not based upon anything substantial, but were purely speculative. Bucher v. Wisconsin C. R. Co. 139 Wis. 597, 120 N.W. 518; Baxter v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 104 Wis. 330, 80 N.W. 652, 6 Am. Neg. Rep. 746; Johnson v. Great Northern R. Co. 107 Minn. 285, 119 N.W. 1061; Collins v. Janesville, 99 Wis. 464, 75 N.W. 88; Strong v. Stevens Point, 62 Wis. 255, 22 N.W. 425; Morrison v. Northern P. R. Co. 34 Wash. 70, 74 P. 1064; Goken v. Dallugge, 72 Neb. 16, 99 N.W. 818, 101 N.W. 244, 103 N.W. 287, 9 Ann. Cas. 1222, 16 Am. Neg. Rep. 479.

Assuming that plaintiff has traumatic neurosis or hysteria, she can be cured by proper treatment. Such ailment is not necessarily of a permanent character. Osler's Practice of Medicine, 7th ed. p. 1096.

The verdict of the jury was clearly against the law, because the reasonable certainty of the permanency of the alleged injuries had in no sense been established. Rev. Codes 1905, § 6558; Strohm v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. 96 N.Y. 305; Curtis v. Rochester & S. R. Co. 18 N.Y. 541, 75 Am. Dec. 258, 9 Am. Neg. Cas. 606; Filer v. New York C. R. Co. 49 N.Y. 45, 10 Am. Rep. 327, 5 Am. Neg. Cas. 147; Clark v. Brown, 18 Wend. 229; Lincoln v. Saratoga & S. R. Co. 23 Wend. 435; Shoemaker v. Sonju, 15 N.D. 518, 108 N.W. 42, 11 Ann. Cas. 1173; Elzig v. Bales, 135 Iowa 208, 112 N.W. 540; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Lindeman, 75 C. C. A. 18, 143 F. 946, 20 Am. Neg. Rep. 243; Hemenway v. Washington Water Power Co. 49 Wash. 338, 95 P. 269; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Reaume, 128 Ky. 90, 107 S.W. 290; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Houchins, 121 Ky. 526, 1 L.R.A.(N.S.) 375, 123 Am. St. Rep. 205, 89 S.W. 530.

Assuming that the injury is permanent, a verdict of $ 16,000 is excessive and against the law. Rooney v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. 173 Mass. 222, 53 N.E. 435, 6 Am. Neg. Rep. 78; Peterson v. Roessler & H. Chemical Co. 131 F. 156; Vicksburg & M. R. Co. v. Putnam, 118 U.S. 545, 30 L.Ed. 257, 7 S.Ct. 1, 12 Am. Neg. Cas. 574; McKenna v. North Hudson County R. Co. 64 N.J.L. 106, 45 A. 777, 7 Am. Neg. Rep. 463; Falldin v. Seattle, 57 Wash. 307, 106 P. 914; Re Jeremiah Smith & Sons, 196 F. 1002; O'Flanagan v. Missouri P. R. Co. 145 Mo.App. 276, 129 S.W. 1021; Canaday v. United R. Cos. 134 Mo.App. 282, 114 S.W. 88.

The evidence of the negligence of defendant is so uncertain and of such doubtful character, that the verdict must in any event be set aside. Depow v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 151 Wis. 109, 138 N.W. 43.

It is an undisputed fact that the settlement of such cases often effects a cure of the disease, and evidence of such fact is proper. Osler's Practice of Medicine, 7th ed. p. 433; Robinson v. Spokane Traction Co. 47 Wash. 303, 91 P. 973.

It is not only the right, but the duty, of this court to review the opinion evidence of the experts. Bucher v. Wisconsin C. R. Co. 139 Wis. 597, 120 N.W. 518; Strong v. Stevens Point, 62 Wis. 255, 22 N.W. 425; Schultz v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 48 Wis. 375, 4 N.W. 399; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Fox, 11 Bush, 495.

It is true that courts may be reluctant to interfere with the verdicts of juries on the ground of excessive damages, but to uphold them where a great wrong has been committed would, as a precedent, be doing an infinite wrong to the community. Union P. R. Co. v. Hand, 7 Kan. 393; Slette v. Great Northern R. Co. 53 Minn. 346, 55 N.W. 137; Collins v. Albany & S. R. Co. 12 Barb. 492; Partello v. Missouri P. R. Co. 217 Mo. 645, 117 S.W. 1138; Johnson v. Great Northern R. Co. 107 Minn. 285, 119 N.W. 1061; Landro v. Great Northern R. Co. 114 Minn. 162, 130 N.W. 553; Bucher v. Wisconsin C. R. Co. 139 Wis. 597, 120 N.W. 518; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Reaume, 128 Ky. 90, 107 S.W. 290; Gibney v. St. Louis Transit Co. 204 Mo. 704, 103 S.W. 43; Depow v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 151 Wis. 109, 138 N.W. 43; Robinson v. Spokane Traction Co. 47 Wash. 303, 91 P. 972; Schwartzbauer v. Great Northern R. Co. 112 Minn. 356, 128 N.W. 286; Fleming v. Lobel, N.J.L. , 59 A. 27, 17 Am. Neg. Rep. 324; Kanen v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. 70 N.J.L. 619, 57 A. 268, 16 Am. Neg. Rep. 127; Morrison v. Northern P. R. Co. 34 Wash. 70, 74 P. 1064; Goken v. Dallugge, 72 Neb. 16, 99 N.W. 818, 101 N.W. 244, 103 N.W. 287, 9 Ann. Cas. 1222, 16 Am. Neg. Rep. 479; Strohm v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. 96 N.Y. 305; Shoemaker v. Sonju, 15 N.D. 518, 108 N.W. 42, 11 Ann. Cas. 1173; Elzig v. Bales, 135 Iowa 208, 112 N.W. 540; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Lindeman, 75 C. C. A. 18, 143 F. 946, 20 Am. Neg. Rep. 243; Hemenway v. Washington Water Power Co. 49 Wash. 338, 95 P. 269; Peterson v. Roessler & H. Chemical Co. 131 F. 156.

Where evidence as to whether injury is permanent is in conflict, and it appears that the lapse of a reasonable time will afford an opportunity to determine this question, at least a new trial will be granted. Stevens v. New Jersey & H. R. R. Co. 74 N.J.L. 237, 65 A. 874; Searles v. Elizabeth, P. & C. J. R. Co. 70 N.J.L. 388, 57 A. 134, 15 Am. Neg. Rep. 614; Kanen v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. 70 N.J.L. 619, 57 A. 268, 16 Am. Neg. Rep. 127; Fleming v. Lobel, N.J.L. , 59 A. 27, 17 Am. Neg. Rep. 324.

W. S. Lauder, A. B. Atkins, and O'Daniull & Atkins, for respondent.

It is elementary law that the jury are the sole judges of the weight of the testimony and the credibility of the witnesses, and of the facts, and, having passed upon all these questions, the court will not set aside the verdict when supported by substantial evidence, even though the evidence is conflicting. Taylor v. Jones, 3 N.D. 235, 55 N.W. 593.

It is also an established rule of law that the court will not direct a verdict even where there is no conflict, if the evidence is such that different minds might reasonably draw different conclusions. Clemens v. Royal Neighbors, 14 N.D. 116, 103 N.W. 402, 8 Ann. Cas. 1111; Houghton Implement Co. v. Vavrowski, 19 N.D. 594, 125 N.W. 1024; Edwards v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 21 S.D. 504, 110 N.W. 832; Hall v. Northern P. R. Co. 16 N.D. 60, 111 N.W. 609, 14 Ann. Cas. 960; Walklin v. Horswill, 24 S.D. 191, 123 N.W. 668; Berry v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 24 S.D. 611, 124 N.W. 859; Casey v. First Bank of Nome, 20 N.D. 211, 126 N.W. 1011; Charles E. Bryant & Co. v. Arnold, 19 S.D. 106, 102 N.W. 303.

In a case tried by jury, the appellate court will not review the evidence to determine its weight, but simply to ascertain if there is sufficient legal evidence to support the verdict. Unzelmann v. Shelton, 19 S.D. 389, 103 N.W. 646; Comeau v. Hurley, 24 S.D. 255, 123 N.W. 715; Olson v. Day, 23 S.D. 150, 120 N.W. 883, 20 Ann. Cas. 516; Mosteller v. Holborn, 20 S.D. 545, 108 N.W. 13; Grant v. Powers Dry Goods Co. 23 S.D. 195, 121 N.W. 95.

On the question of the permanency of the injuries, the jury had the right to believe the testimony of plaintiff and her expert witnesses. And even where the evidence is conflicting as to the permanency of the injuries, or where recovery is doubtful, the courts will not set aside a verdict as excessive. 13 Cyc. 130, 132, notes, 66-69, and cases cited.

The verdict in this case was not excessive. Zibbell v Southern P. R. Co. 160 Cal. 237, 116 P. 513; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Gray, Tex. Civ. App. , 137 S.W. 729; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Ranson, Tex. Civ. App. , 125 S.W. 63; San Antonio Traction Co. v. Probandt, Tex. Civ. App. , ...