Case ID: minn_137/html/0473-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Peb Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

F. E. SMITH v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
    
    June 22, 1917.
    Nos. 20,380 — (198).
    Damages not excessive.
    Verdict for ¡¡>20,000 reduced by trial court to $12,000. Held: The record does not justify the court in holding that the damages are excessive or given under the influence of passion or prejudice against defendant. [Reporter.]
    After the former appeal reported in 133 Minn. 192, 158 N. W. 48, the case was tried before Nethaway, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $20,000. Defendant’s motion for a new trial was granted unless plaintiff consented to a reduction of the verdict to $12,000. From the order denying its motion, defendant appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      M. L. Countryman, A. L. Janes, and D. S. Holmes, for appellant.
    
      W. P. Crawford and W. A. Watts, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 163 N. W. 1070.
    
   Peb Curiam.

This cause was before the court on a former appeal and is reported in 133 Minn. 192, 158 N. W. 46. The right of the plaintiff to recover in the action was there sustained. A new trial was ordered upon the issue of damages and resulted in a verdict of $20,000. This the trial court reduced to $12,000, which plaintiff accepted. Defendant appealed from an order denying a new trial. The sole contention in support of the appeal is that the damages are excessive and appear to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice. A discussion of the evidence will serve no useful purpose. It was fully reviewed in the former opinion, to which reference is here made for further information. Whether the injuries from which plaintiff claims to be suffering were in fact received by him, whether they are urged in good faith, and the nature and character thereof, were all questions for the jury, and the record will not justify the conclusion by this court that the verdict was brought about by passion or prejudice against defendant.

Order affirmed.