The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-03-19
VERDICT WAS TOO LARGE.
Nudge Willis Grants New Trial Right
OF the Reel

Too large a verdict proved unfortu-
hate for Julia Fillmore, whose suit for
damages against the street railway
company was tried before Judge Willis
and jury Mrs. Fillmore was one of
the passengers injured last September
on the street car that was struck by
Minneapolis q St Louis railroad train
at the Smelling avenue crossing. The
jury, after an hours deliberatiOn, re-
turned a sealed verdict Wednesday
afternoon. The verdict was in favor
Of the plaintiff for the sum of $3,5O0
Counsel for the street railway COM
pany at once moved that the verdict
be set aside as excessive and that a
new trial be granted. After reviewing
the case from the bench Judge Willis
granted both motions, and in doing so
Bald:
One of the pronounced convictions which I
have always entertained, both in professional
. and judicial life, has been respect for the
Jury system. l stilf believe that that system
is the best that has yet been devised by the
wit of man for the adjudication of disputed
questions of fact. l am always reluctant to
disturb the verdict of jury, and have been
accustomed in all cases to sustain a verdict
wherever it was possible.
The verdict rendered in this case seems to
me so far out of proportion to the injuries
disclosed by the testimony and much at
conflict with the facts as developed at the
trial as to be calculated to shock the moral
sense of mankind 1t is a verdict which can
scarcely be characterized too severely. The
verdict, IN my opinion, IN the case of Morrow
against the st. Paul City Railway company
was too small, and | so expressed myself at
The time the motion was made for a new trial.
In this case, no verdict in excess of $500 could
possibly be sustained by any court exercising
due discretion, good judgment ard that sense
OF fairness and justice which ought to govern
all courts Not only is that the case, but the
verdict is contrary to the evidence justly
considered. l think no lawyer of experience
sitting IN the court room and hearing man
who was absolutely uninjured in a collision
say that he could not tell what happened to
his wife, or how he got out of the car at the
time or Immediately after the collision and
does not know anything about his wife until
he nnds her falling on the ground outside the
car, could possibly place any dependence on
the testimony of luCh a witness. Grave sus-
picion attaches to the testimony Of a witness
who does not remember what happened to him
or her, when there is no testimony that in
sensibility occurred, that nobody saw the
person in a state of insensibility or that any
blow was struck on the head or neck which
would naturally tend to cause insensibility.
Inc medical testimony was essential
G ~ ., unsatisfactory i ati The only possible
been suffering was neuralgia in her right side
and there was no testimony that the nerves
supplying that portion of the body were sever
ed or had been crushed injured in any par
ticu,ar way.
The plaintiff appeared in court a we'll
nourished person. signs of unsoundness
about her, woman apparently strong not
having been subjected to injuries permanent
m their nature; apparently person who could
endure blows and shocks much more severe
than any that has appeared in the testimony
here, without any great damage to her physi-
cal or nervous system. There was no testi-
many that her injuries were permanent.
The amount awarded her, at per cent per
Rnnum, would yield 500 each year for the
remainder of her life, and that sum thus cap
ttalized is probably in excess of all that she
could accumulate if she lived to the farthest
limit of human existence. 1t is clearly eX-
cessive. The damage to the rib, II it really
existed q lapprqfiOn off hp cor
uaginous tissue, connecting the anterior pOr-
items Of the rib readily cured and could
result in injury to the liver only In case ii
lacerated the perinaeum, and that would
set up pertoneal Inflammation which would
be readily ascertainable by medical expert
Nothing OF that kind appeared in the teStt-
mony. The subjective symptoms were not
such as to clearly lead the mind to the con-
cluSlon that any physical disorder existed in
the plaintiff; and the numerous cases related
In medical Jurisprudence, where hySteria has
has been manifest at the trial. and where it
has been shown that simply hysteria has been
q substitute for physical injury leads US to be
extremely cautious in taking a large SUM of
money from an Individual in the community
on the theory that he has wronged some one
where the claimant comes before the court
with purely subjective statement of his con-
dition as the basis of such claim If we had
plainly seen in this case an alteration of
tissue, a disturbance of the circulation an
impairment of the mental faculties an i'm
parment of vision. an obliteration, in whole
or in part, of plaintiffs senses. the situation
would have been entirely different But to
say that $50 should be taken from any in
dividual or any association Of Individuals and
awarded TO the plaintiff the testimony sub
mitted in this cause would be to undermine
the principles of justice, which should govern
courts and juries.