Wilson v. Northern Pacific Railway Company, a Corporation

• Citation: 153 N.W. 429,30 N.D. 456
• Decision Date: 12 May 1915
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota

153 N.W. 429

30 N.D. 456

MAGDALENA WILSON v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, a Corporation

Supreme Court of North Dakota

May 12, 1915

Appeal from the District Court of Stutsman County, Coffey, J.

Action to recover damages for injuries occasioned by overexertion in attempting to put out a prairie fire.

Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Watson & Young and E. T. Conmy, for appellant.

Where improper testimony for plaintiff is allowed over objection it is the rule that prejudice must be presumed from the error, and plaintiff must affirmatively show that the testimony was harmless. McPherrin v. Jones, 5 N.D 261, 65 N.W. 685; Moore v. Booker, 4 N.D. 543, 62 N.W. 607; Miller v. Durst, 14 S.D. 587, 86 N.W. 631.

Relevant testimony is that which conduces to prove a hypothesis which if sustained, would logically influence the issue, and hence it is relevant to put in evidence any circumstances tending to make the proposition at issue either more or less improbable. Ward v. Young, 42 Ark. 542; Shannon v. Kinny, 1 A. K. Marsh. 3, 10 Am. Dec. 705; Jones, Ev §§ 141-146; American Nat. Bank v. Lundy, 21 N.D. 167, 129 N.W. 99; 13 Cyc. 24; Gardner v. Detroit Street R. Co., 99 Mich. 182, 58 N.W. 49, 4 Am. Neg. Cas. 163; Warren v. Wright, 103 Ill. 298; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Ritter, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 482, 41 S.W. 753; Hood v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co., 95 Iowa 331, 64 N.W. 261.

The verdict of the jury must be for a fixed and certain sum, in order to sustain a judgment. Rev. Codes 1905, § 7035, Comp. Laws 1913, § 7634; Watson v. Damon, 54 Cal. 279; 2 Thomp. Trials, § 2642; 2 Elliott, Gen. Pr. § 947; Mitchell v. Geisendorff, 44 Ind. 358; Educational Asso. v. Hitchcock, 4 Kan. 39; Thompson v. Shea, 4 McCrary, 93, 11 F. 847; Hallum v. Dickinson, 47 Ark. 120, 14 S.W. 477; Parker v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 93 Mich. 607, 53 N.W. 834; Buck v. Little, 24 Miss. 463; Fiore v. Ladd, 29 Ore. 528, 46 P. 145; Newton v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 168 Mo.App. 199, 153 S.W. 495; Weston v. Gilmore, 63 Me. 493; Wertz v. Cincinnati, H. & D. R. Co., 11 Ohio Dec. Reprint, 872; Lake v. Hardee, 57 Ga. 459.

The jury must correct its own verdict when necessary, under proper instructions from the court. Cookville Coal & Lumber Co. v. Evans, Tex. Civ. App. , 135 S.W. 750.

A new trial will be granted where the verdict is uncertain as to the amount found to be due plaintiff. Goosely v. Holmes, 3 Call Va. 424; Dorsett v. Crew, 1 Colo. 18; Holmberg v. Hendry, 2 Cal. Unrep. 650, 10 P. 394; Macoleta v. Packard, 14 Cal. 178; Minot v. Boston, 201 Mass. 10, 25 L.R.A. (N.S.) 311, 86 N.E. 783; Bashford v. Kendall, 2 Ariz. 6, 7 P. 176; Halum v. Dickinson, 47 Ark. 120, 14 S.W. 777; Voves v. Great Northern R. Co., 26 N.D. 110, 48 L.R.A. (N.S.) 30, 143 N.W. 760.

Defendant's negligence in all such cases must be the proximate cause of the injury. Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U.S. 469, 470, 24 L. ed. 256, 257; Seale v. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co., 65 Tex. 274, 57 Am. Rep. 604; Logan v. Wabash R. Co., 96 Mo.App. 461, 70 S.W. 734; Pittsburg Southern R. Co. v. Taylor, 104 Pa. 306, 49 Am. Rep. 580; West Mahanoy Twp. v. Watson, 112 Pa. 574, 56 Am. Rep. 336, 3 A. 866; Ewing v. Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co., 147 Pa. 40, 14 L.R.A. 666, 30 Am. St. Rep. 709, 23 A. 340.

Defendant is not liable for consequences of negligence which were unintended, and which could not be foreseen by an ordinarily prudent person. New Orleans & N.E. R. Co. v. McEwen & Murray, 49 La.Ann. 1184, 38 L.R.A. 134, 22 So. 675; Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Lindsay, 109 Ill.App. 533; Currier v. McKee, 99 Me. 364, 59 A. 442, 3 Ann. Cas. 57; Bannon v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 29 Pa. S.Ct. 231; Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co. v. Locke, 112 Ind. 404, 2 Am. St. Rep. 193, 14 N.E. 391; Sjogren v. Hall, 53 Mich. 274, 18 N.W. 812; Garraghty v. Hartstein, 26 N.D. 148, 143 N.W. 392; Fox v. Borkey, 126 Pa. 164, 17 A. 604.

The negligence of defendant, if any, in setting the fire, is not the proximate cause of the injury she sustained. Such injury was the direct result of fright, terror, alarm, and mental anxiety, unaccompanied by any physical injury. 3 Elliott, Railroads, § 1247; Henderson v. Weidman, 88 Neb. 813, 130 N.W. 579; American Nat. Bank v. Morey, 113 Ky. 857, 58 L.R.A. 956, 101 Am. St. Rep. 379, 69 S.W. 760; Birmingham Waterworks Co. v. Martin, 2 Ala.App. 652, 56 So. 832; White v. Sander, 168 Mass. 296, 47 N.E. 90, 2 Am. Neg. Rep. 573; Kalen v. Terre Haute & I. R. Co., 18 Ind.App. 202, 63 Am. St. Rep. 343, 47 N.E. 694; Canning v. Williamstown, 1 Cush. 451; Salina v. Trosper, 27 Kan. 544; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. McGinnis, 46 Kan. 109, 26 P. 453; Morse v. Duncan, 14 F. 396; Wyman v. Leavitt, 71 Me. 227, 36 Am. Rep. 303; Johnson v. Wells, F. & Co., 6 Nev. 224, 3 Am. Rep. 245; Indianapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Stables, 62 Ill. 313; Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. Brunker, 128 Ind. 542, 26 N.E. 178; Haile v. Texas & P. R. Co., 23 L.R.A. 774, 9 C.C.A. 134, 23 U.S. App. 80, 60 F. 557; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Cox, 2 Tex.App. Civ. Cas. (Willson) 217; Nelson v. Crawford, 122 Mich. 466, 80 Am. St. Rep. 577, 81 N.W. 335; Russell v. Western U. Teleg. Co., 3 Dakota 315, 19 N.W. 408.

If anxiety and suspense of mind alone are not a ground for recovery, then the effects furnish no ground. Pierce, Railroads, 1881 ed. 302; Indianapolis, B. & W. R. Co. v. Birney, 71 Ill. 391; Hobbs v. London S.W. R. Co. L. R. 10 Q. B. 111, 44 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 49, 32 L. T. N. S. 352, 23 Week. Rep. 520, 5 Eng. Rul. Cas. 38; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Barker, 4 Colo, 344, 34 Am. Rep. 89, 9 Am. Neg. Cas. 131; Francis v. St. Louis Transfer Co., 5 Mo.App. 7; Nelson v. Atlantic & P. R. Co., 68 Mo. 593, 4 Am. Neg. Cas. 500, 2 Redf. Railways, 5th ed. 262; Trigg v. St. Louis, K. C. & N. R. Co., 74 Mo. 147, 41 Am. Rep. 308; Spade v. Lynn & B. R. Co., 168 Mass. 285, 38 L.R.A. 512, 60 Am. St. Rep. 393, 47 N.E. 88, 2 Am. Neg. Rep. 566; White v. Sander, 168 Mass. 296, 47 N.E. 90, 2 Am. Neg. Rep. 573; Smith v. Postal Teleg. Cable Co., 174 Mass. 576, 47 L.R.A. 323, 75 Am. St. Rep. 374, 55 N.E. 380, 7 Am. Neg. Rep. 54; Victorian R. Comrs. v. Coultas, L. R. 13 App. Cas. 222, 57 L. J. P. C. N. S. 69, 58 L. T. N. S. 390, 37 Week. Rep. 129, 52 J. P. 500, 8 Eng. Rul. Cas. 405; Ewing v. Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co., 147 Pa. 40, 14 L.R.A. 666, 30 Am. St. Rep. 709, 23 A. 340; Lombard v. Lennox, 155 Mass. 70, 31 Am. St. Rep. 528, 28 N.E. 1125; Fillebrown v. Hoar, 124 Mass. 580; Meagher v. Driscoll, 99 Mass. 281, 96 Am. Dec. 759; Haile v. Texas & P. R. Co., 23 L.R.A. 774, 9 C.C.A. 134, 23 U.S. App. 80, 60 F. 557; Joch v. Dankwardt, 85 Ill. 331, 10 Mor. Min. Rep. 690; Canning v. Williamstown, 1 Cush. 451; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Wood, 21 L.R.A. 706, 6 C.C.A. 432, 13 U.S. App. 317, 57 F. 471; Renner v. Canfield, 36 Minn. 90, 1 Am. St. Rep. 654, 30 N.W. 435; Johnson v. Wells, F. & Co., 6 Nev. 224, 3 Am. Rep. 245; Wyman v. Leavitt, 71 Me. 227, 36 Am. Rep. 303; Mitchell v. Rochester R. Co., 151 N.Y. 107, 34 L.R.A. 781, 56 Am. St. Rep. 604, 45 N.E. 354, 1 Am. Neg. Rep. 121.

Where the injury is purely accidental, and results from circumstances over which defendant had no control, and which could not have been reasonably anticipated, the damages are too remote to warrant a recovery. Mitchell v. Rochester R. Co. supra; Sheldon v. Hudson River R. Co., 29 Barb. 228; Longabough v. Virginia City & Truckee R. Co., 9 Nev. 296; Smith v. Hannibal & St. J. R. Co., 37 Mo. 295; Omaha & R. Valley R. Co. v. Clark, 35 Neb. 867, 23 L.R.A. 509, 53 N.W. 970; Kilpatrick v. Richardson, 37 Neb. 731, 56 N.W. 481; White v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 1 S.D. 330, 9 L.R.A. 824, 47 N.W. 146; Cameron v. Great Northern R. Co., 8 N.D. 124, 77 N.W. 1016, 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 454; Whitney v. Clifford, 57 Wis. 156, 14 N.W. 927; Shearm. & Redf. Neg. § 57, 58; Nason v. West, 78 Me. 253, 3 A. 911, 5 Am. Neg. Cas. 273; Meehan v. Great Northern R. Co., 13 N.D. 443, 101 N.W. 183; Scherer v. Schlaberg, 18 N.D. 421, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 520, 122 N.W. 1000; Garrity v. Hartstein, 26 N.D. 148, 143 N.W. 390.

Damages in such cases cannot rest upon mere conjecture or speculation. Mitchell v. Rochester R. Co., 151 N.Y. 107, 34 L.R.A. 781, 56 Am. St. Rep. 604, 45 N.E. 354, 1 Am. Neg. Rep. 121.

Knauf & Knauf, for respondent.

There can be no presumption of prejudice arising from the testimony of a witness who saw the fire burning, as to the ground it covered, its direction, the location of plaintiff's home, and similar facts. Such facts are relevant. But defendant's objections were general, and cannot be considered. Buchanan v. Minneapolis Threshing Mach. Co., 17 N.D. 343, 116 N.W. 335; First Nat. Bank v. Warner, 17 N.D. 76, 114 N.W. 1085, 17 Ann. Cas. 213.

There was no proper hypothesis in the defendant's questions, and the court did not err in sustaining objections thereto. The questions did not specifically refer to the patient in question, the plaintiff. Pyke v. Jamestown, 15 N.D. 157, 107 N.W. 364; Ward v. Young, 42 Ark. 554.

In any event, such testimony was plainly collateral to the issues involved, and offered merely to prejudice the minds of the jury. Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Smith, Tex. Civ. App. , 24 S.W. 668; Russel v. Hearne, 113 N.C. 361, 18 S.E. 711.

The verdict of the jury is plain and certain, and devoid of any ambiguity. Voves v. Great Northern R. Co., 26 N.D. 110, 48 L.R.A. (N. S.) 30, 143 N.W. 760.

The plaintiff did everything possible to stop the fire, and in so doing acted in a prudent and careful manner, and in accordance with her duty. Hawley v. Sumpter Valley R. Co., 12 L. R.A. (N.S.) 526, 527 and notes and citations, 49 Ore. 509, 90 P. 1106; Seale v. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co., 65 Tex. 274, 57 Am. Rep. 602.

The proximate cause of an event is that which, in a natural and...