The herald., 1894-12-11
INSIGNIFICANT DAMAGES
JUDGE ROSS PRONOUNCES THE
CARTER VERDICT ABSURD.
The Case Reviewed In . Lengthy
Opinion and the Motion
Ter y New Trial
Granted.

Some two or three months ago q col
ored man named John Garter, while
standing on a scsffold, engaged in white
washing the building used by Wells
Fargo & Co. as a stable, came to grief
wagon belonging to the company
knocked the scaffold down, and Garter
fell to the ground also, receiving severe
injuries.
He instituted suit for damages, and
the jury awarded him the nominal sum
OF 81 in compensation. In the United
States circuit court yesterday Judge
Ross handed down an opinion, in which
the court comes to Carter's relief and
grants the motion that was made for a
new trial.
The whole case is reviewed in the
opinion as follows:
This action WAS brought to recover
damages in the amount Of $4,000 for
personal injuries alleged to have been
sustained by the plaintiff by the alleged
negligence of the defendant. The ver-
dict OF the jury in favor of the plaintiff
necessarily included finding that the
defendant was negligent, and that there
was no contributory negligence on
plaintiffs part, as set up in defense OF
the action.
There was much evidence in the case
tending to show that there was no negli-
gence on the part of the defendant, and
further, that there was contributory
negligence on plaintiffs part as should
prevent recovery by him and, had the
verdict been in favor OF the defendant on
either or both OF these propositions,
there would be no interference with it
by the court, for the evidence in respect
to those matters was substantially con-
fiicting, and the issues in respect thereto
were for the discrimination of the Jury,
under appropriate instructions from the
court, which were given. But the YER
dict being, in effect, that plaintiff was
injured by the defendants negligence,
without contributory negligence on his
own part, he was msnifeetly entitled at
the hands of the jury to substantial
damages. The evidence was without
conflict that the collision which caused
the plaintiffs injury threw him from a
scaffold eight or ten feet high, on which
he was at the time working for 81 per
day, to the ground, his head and shoul-
der striking on large rock. from which
ne was picked up in an uncon.
scious condition, and that after
regaining consciousness he was carried
to the county hospital. where he re-
manned about five weeks, two weeks OF
which time ne was confined to his bed.
These facts of themselves entitled the
plaintiff, under the verdict, to substan-
tial damages, and not to the merely
nominal sum of 81. The head and neck
OF the plaintiff were, at the time OF the
trial, much bent to one eide, and his
walk was that of q paralytic. The de-
fendant introduced many witnesses,
who testified that his appearance and
movements were about the same prior
to the injury complained OF as they were
at the time of the trial, and that they
could see no difference in them. This
testimony on the part OF the defendant
was controverted by many witnesses for
the plaintiff. The exhibition. however,
that WAS made of the plaintiffs person
in court. and the tests that were there
made by DR.. Hughes, amounted, l
fact that the plaintiff could not possibly
have at that time stood upon the plank
and performed the work the evidence
without conflict showed that he was
doing at the time OF the accident.
Accepting, as the court must, for the
purposes of this motion, the facts to be
that the plaintiff, without fault OF his
own, was Injured by the negligence of
the defen dant, it can not permit q YER
dict to stand that awards him damages
in name only. While the court should,
and always will, be careful not to usurp
the functions OF the jury, it is, never
theless, lts duty to protect parties from
mproper verdicts rendered through mis-.
conception, prejudice, passion or other
wrong influences. (26 Fed. Rep, $685.
81 Fed. Rep. 545; 10 Fed. Rep, 405:
20 Fed. Rep, 1922
IL Field on Damages, $50, it is said:
at is less usual for the court to inter,
fere with the finding of the jury for in
adequate than for excessive damages,
though it has the power to do go.
But verdict may generally be set aside
for inadequacy upon the same grounds
that warrant the court in interfering
where they are excessive" To the
same effect is Gather vs. Kansas City,
ETC., Railroad company, 81 Fed. Rep,
545. And in Sedgwick on Damages, vol.
2, 606, it ia said: THE forbearance OF
the court to interfere with the jury is 80
great that, in actions OF tort, the gen.
eral rule is that a new trial will not be
granted for smsllness of damages but
it seems that if the jury go far disre.
gard the justice of the case as to give no
damages at all where some redress is
clearly due, the court will interpose.
So, where in a case for negligence
for defendant's servant driving against
the plaintiff, it appeared that the plaint
ifs thigh was broken and considerable
expense incurred for surgical treatment,
the plaintiff obtained verdict, dams
ages one farthing. a new trial was grant.