Case Name: AMBROSE SCHMITT v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS AND ANOTHER
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1917-10-26
Citations: 138 Minn. 474
Docket Number: No. 20,520
Parties: AMBROSE SCHMITT v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS AND ANOTHER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 138
Pages: 474–475

Head Matter:
AMBROSE SCHMITT v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS AND ANOTHER.
October 26, 1917.
No. 20,520.
Damages — verdict not excessive.
.Action for personal injury. Verdict for $300. The physician testified the injury was permanent. Plaintiff’s wife was unable to attend to her duties for several months and plaintiff cared for her in person. There was no evidence as to a money outlay. Held: The verdict was not excessive. [Reporter.]
Action in the district court for Hennepin county against the city of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company to recover $2,500 for injuries received by plaintiff’s wife while crossing a bridge over the tracks of the railroad company. The case was tried before Hale, X, who when 'plaintiff rested denied motions for a directed verdict in favor of each defendant, and a jury which returned a verdict for $300. From an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company appealed.
Affirmed.
F. M. Miner and M. M. Joyce, for plaintiff.
Frank W. Booth, for respondent.
Reported in 164 N. W. 801.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The plaintiff is the husband of the plaintiff in Schmitt v. City of Minneapolis, supra, page 193, 164 N. W. 801, and brings this action to recover damages sustained by him through the injuries to his wife considered in the case cited. He had a verdict for $300 and the defendant railway appeals. The only question material here and not considered in the case cited is whether the damages are excessive. The evidence, is meager. There was no evidence as to expenses of medical attention. The wife was unable to perform her usual duties for several months and according to her physician her injury is permanent. The plaintiff in' earing for her used his own time and services. There is no evidence as to a money outlay. We cannot say that the damages are excessive.
Order affirmed.