Case ID: wis_163/html/0084-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KeewiN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Prellwitz, Respondent, vs. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Company, Appellant.
    
      March 16
    
    April 11, 1916.
    
    
      Street railways: Injury to passenger alighting from car: "Negligence of conductor and motorman: Special verdict: Inconsistency: Excessive damages.
    
    1. In an action for injuries sustained in alighting from a street car, findings by the jury that the conductor and the motorman were each guilty of a want of ordinary care in-starting the car are not inconsistent, there being evidence that the motorman was negligent in suddenly starting the car and that the conductor was negligent in giving the signal to start before plaintiff had alighted.
    2. An award of $3,200 for serious injuries to a school teacher, caused by the sudden starting of a street car from which she was alighting, is held not so excessive as to show that the jury was actuated by passion or prejudice.
    Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for Milwaukee county: LaweeNce W. Halsey, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    Action to recover for personal injuries. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff and defendant appealed. Tbe jury returned tbe following verdict:
    “(1) Was tbe defendant’s car suddenly started from a state of rest while tbe plaintiff was in tbe act of alighting therefrom? A. Yes.
    “(2) If you answer tbe first question ‘Yes,’ did tbe defendant, in so starting such car, fail to exercise ordinary care? A. Yes.
    “(3) If you answer tbe first question ‘Yes,’ was tbe defendant’s conductor guilty of a want of ordinary care in starting said car ? A. Yes.
    “(4) If you answer the first question ‘Yes,’ was tbe defendant’s motorman guilty of a want of ordinary care in starting said car? A. Yes.
    “(5) If you answer tbe second question ‘Yes,’ was such failure to exercise ordinary care tbe proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries? A. Yes.
    
      “(6) Did any want of ordinary care on tbe part of the plaintiff proximately contribute to plaintiff's injuries? A. No. •
    “(7) At what sum do you assess the plaintiff’s damages? A. $3,200.”
    The contention of appellant on this appeal is that the appeal is taken because the trial court denied defendant’s motion for new trial made upon the ground, ámong other things, that the damages assessed by the jury are grossly excessive, that the verdict is the result of passion and prejudice, is perverse, and because the answers to questions 3 and 4 of the special verdict are inconsistent.
    Eor the appellant there was a brief by Van Dyke, Shaw, Muskat &Van Dyke, and oral argument by Oarl Muskat.
    
    Eor the respondent there was a brief by Houghton, Neelen & Houghton, and oral argument by F. ~W. Houghton.
    
   KeewiN, J.

There is evidence tending to show that plaintiff, a school teacher, forty years of age, lived at Beaver Dam, and during the summer of 1914 was taking a-postgraduate course in Milwaukee normal school; that on July 14, 1914, she took a street car going home from the Normal and just before reaching Martin street rang the bell for the car to stop; that she had three or four books in her right hand; that she started toward the rear of the car, the conductor opened the door, and she took hold of the handle with her left hand and was in the act of alighting from the car when the conductor signaled for the car to go ahead and the car started; that the car started suddenly with a jerk as plaintiff was attempting to alight therefrom and she was thrown and came down with great force on her left side, her head striking the ground. The injury occurred July 14, 1914, and the trial was had September 16, 1915. There is an abundance of evidence that plaintiff was seriously injured and that she was still suffering from the injury at the time of the trial; that sbe was suffering from traumatic neurasthenia, an injury to the nervous system.

The contention that questions 3 and 4 of the special verdict are inconsistent is not'tenable. There is ample evidence to sustain the finding that the' motorman was negligent in suddenly starting the car and that the conductor was negligent in giving the signal to the motorman to start the car before the plaintiff had alighted therefrom.

It is claimed that the damages awarded by the jury are excessive and the result of passion and prejudice on the part of the jury. It is true the damages are quite high, but it is also true that upon the evidence produced on the trial the injuries which the plaintiff sustained were quite serious, and we find nothing m the record which would warrant us in saying that the jury was actuated by passion or prejudice. The learned trial court below refused to disturb the verdict on the question of damages and we are not able to say that the court was clearly wrong.

By the Court. — Judgment is affirmed.