Case ID: minn_120/html/0531-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

F. B. McLAREN v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
    
    January 31, 1913.
    Nos. 17,806—(177).
    Damages not excessive.
    Verdict for $2,000 in an action for personal injury. Tlaintiff was a farmer and lectured at farmers’ institutes. If the testimony was true that he was-suffering from traumatic'neurosis and, under ordinary treatment, would recover in two years from the time of the accident, the damages were not excessive. The question was one of fact for the jury and their verdict was sustained. [Reporter.]
    Action in the district court for Carlton county against Northern 'Pacific Railway Company and Great Northern Railway Company to recover $15,975 for personal injury. The case was tried before Cant, J., and a jury which returned a verdict against the Great Northern Railway Company for $2,000. From an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, the Great Northern Railway Company appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      Baldwin & Baldwin, for appellant.
    
      C. R. Magney and John Jenswold, Jr., for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 139 N. W. 621.
    
   Per Curiam.

This action is brought to recover damages for personal injury to plaintiff by reason of a collision between trains. The jury found for plaintiff, and assessed his damages at $2,000. The only question raised on this appeal is that these damages are excessive.

The evidence showed that a fellow passenger was thrown against plaintiff, forcing him against the window casing of the car. Plaintiff claims to have suffered much pain, and to have been largely disabled from following his usual vocation, that of farmer and lecturer at farmers’ institutes. Plaintiff’s expert physician testified that plaintiff was suffering from traumatic neurosis caused by the collision, and that under ordinary treatment he would recover entirely in a year from the time of the trial. This would be about two years from' the time of the injury. It is conceded that, if plaintiff’s evidence as to his subjective symptoms is true, then this diagnosis is correct. If the testimony in behalf of plaintiff as to the nature of the injury and as to the extent of plaintiff’s disability be true, the damages are not excessive. The whole question is one of fact for the jury, and we cannot disturb their verdict.

Order affirmed.