Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1915-05-14
SUPREME EN- COURT AFF1RMs
LOWER COURT IN CASE or
MAGDALENA WILSON VS..
NORTHERN PACIFIC.
HONE THREATENED BY FIRE
she Carried water Uphill to Save
Place and Was Permanently
Injured.

"A decision Of the supreme court af'
flrming the, lower court in the case
Of Magdalena Wilson VS.. Northern Pa
clic Railway company was handed
down yesterday. Judge Bruce wrote
the opinion.
In this case the plaintiff, Magdalena
Wilson. claimed damages for personal
injuries received about a year and a
half ago when her claim in Stutsman
county was threatened by a fire which
is claimed to have been negligently
caused by the defendant company.
The woman was at home all alone
with her young daughter when the fire
Threatened to destroy her home.
.r She ran out and carried water up
hill in order to save the property and
the over eXertion and strain, it is
said, resulted in permanent injuries
to her. ~
/ The lower court, Judge Coffey, in
Stutsman, county district court, gave
(, Judgment, for the plaintiff and the wo-
man was awarded damages. The rail-
stroad company appealed and the SUI
y pfeale court affirmed Judge COffey.
Ea. 0yIoHLS VI SuSS,
5 The syllabus follows:
Decision of Supreme .COurt-From
Stutsman County.
{ Magdalena Wilson, Plaintiff and Res.
pOndent, VS..
Northern Pacific Railway Company,
Defendant and Appellant.
Cd In a personal injury action the
jury returned the following verdict:
"We the jury, in the above entitled
action find for the plaintiff and against
the defendant and assess the damag-
es in the sum Of $240O; $109.25 doctor
bill, Z percent interest on damages
from Oct. 4, 1912, to date" At the
request of the plaintiff the court n
tered Judgment allowing interest mere.
ly on the $4,000 item. Held, that the
uncertainty of the verdict, If any, is
no ground for the reversal of the
Judgment. .l,.a .,.,s
.i'(2yr, In a tort action damages can
be recovered for injuries which proxi-
I!mately follow from the wrongful act
whether such injuries were or could
have, been anticipated or not.
C""l~ An act is negligent and fur.
nishes the foundation for an action
in tort if the same is forbidden by
law or the person doing it might reas.
onably anticipate that it might be in.
furious! to some one. 1t is not neces-
sary. however, that that some II
should be the person who is actually
in ljured. ''.
"a For a breach Of an obligation
not arising from contract and except
when otherwise provided by the Code
Of North Dakota the emasure Of dam.
ages is the amount which will com.
ps~nsateAfor all thu ,detrinlent iproxi-
mately caused thereby, whether it
could have been anticipated or not.
See Sec. 7165 G l.. 1918.
~ Where a prairie fire is negli-
gently caused by a railway company
and the wife of a homesteader who is
left at home alone with her young
daughter uses every reasonable effort
to put out such fire and in doing so
overworks and strains herself SO that
permanent injuries ensue, she a
recover damages from such company
therefor provided that she did not I'm.
reasonably and recklessly expose her.
self to such injury. Whether she was
reckless and negligent in this respect
Is. primarily a question of fact for the
jury, and not Of law for the court to
pass upon. w. .>
Where the record on appeal
contains no exceptions to the instruc-
tions of the jury and omits such in
structions entirely, the presumption
will be that the jury was properly in.
structed on all of the phases Of the
case.
y (O-It is not necessary in order
that a married woman may recover
damages for injuries sustained in an
attempt to stop a prairie fire, which
threatens her home. that such woman
should own the fee of the property,
and the fact that she has merely a
homestead interest in the same is no
bar to her recovery.
i(S Though as a rule damages
which are occasioned by fright alone
cannot be recovered in a tort action
without proof Of a physical injury,
the mere fact that a person may have
been frightened by fire and that such
fright may have had some influence
in inducing her to fight against it does
not preclude a recovery for injury sus.
tanned in such attempt where the ex-
ertion put forth was the exertion that
a reasonably prudent person would
have put forth under like circumstan-
ces.
(9) Where a tort has been com.
mitted it is the duty Of the injured
party to use reasonable efforts to
avoid the consequences thereof and to
reduce the damages sustained thereby,
and IL in such reasonable attempt he
is injured damages may be recovered
therefor.
t10} The questions of negligence
and of contributory negligence are pri-
marily questiones of fact for the jury
to pass upon.
I'D Where q part of an answer is
oe Not I0ripe