Case Name: Curtice, Respondent, vs. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, Appellant
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1918-02-05
Citations: 166 Wis. 594
Docket Number: 
Parties: Curtice, Respondent, vs. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 166
Pages: 594–598

Head Matter:
Curtice, Respondent, vs. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, Appellant.
January 8
February 5, 1918.
Railroads: Injury to employee: Interstate commerce: Amendment of complaint: Changing cause of action: Decision on former appeal: Law of the case: Contributory negligence: Reduction of damages.
1. The decision of this court on a former appeal in an action for injury to a railway employee, that hy amending the complaint so as to allege that the parties were at the time engaged in interstate commerce, thus bringing the case under the federal statute, plaintiff did not change the cause of action originally pleaded or substitute a different one, is adhered to.
2. In a verdict assessing plaintiff’s damages for personal injuries at $5,750, a finding that such damages should be diminished only $1,250 on account of his contributory negligence is held to have been justified by the evidence.
Appeal from a judgment of tbe circuit court for .Brown county: Henby Gbaass, Circuit Judge.
Affirmed.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff on October 9, 1911, when one of the defendant’s passenger trains ran into and collided with a freight train of the defendant on which the plaintiff ivas employed as conductor.
This case was before this court on appeal from a judgment of the circuit court dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, which was reversed by this court and the cause was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings according to law. The original complaint and answer, the amended complaint and amended answer, with the proceedings thereon in the circuit court, and the judgment of dismissal entered by the circuit court upon the first trial, are fully set forth in the statement of the case on the former appeal of the case to this court and are reported in 162 Wis. 421 et seq., 156 N. W. 484. We need not repeat here what is there stated.
Upon remittitur from tbis court tbe case was retried in the circuit court before a jury and a special verdict was rendered wherein it was found that the engineer of the passenger train failed to exercise ordinary care at the time of the collision;' that such failure was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injury; that the plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care which proximately contributed to his injury; that plaintiff sustained loss and damage to the sum of $5,750; that such damages should be diminished in the sum of $1,250 on account of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence.
Defendant moved the circuit court to direct a verdict in its favor on the grounds (1) that it appeared as a matter of law that there was no cause of action; (2) that the record shows that the action was commenced either as a common-law action or under the statute law of Wisconsin, and that it was amended during the first trial of this case to an alleged cause of action under the federal law, which amendment was made at a time more than two years after the accident, and that such amendment constituted a change of the cause of action, and that the statute of limitations under the federal statute barred the cause of action alleged in plaintiff’s amended complaint.
The motion was denied. After verdict and before judgment the defendant filed alternative motions: (1) for judgment for the defendant upon the undisputed evidence, notwithstanding the special verdict of the jury; (2) for judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict, for the reason that the amendment of the complaint set forth a new cause of action under the federal Employers’ Liability Act, and that such action was barred by the federal statute of limitations; (3) for an order setting aside the special verdict and each and every part thereof, and for judgment upon the undisputed evidence; (4) for an order changing the answer to the third question of the special verdict from “Yes” to “No” and for judgment for the defendant upon such cor rected verdict; and (5) in tbe event of tbe denial of sucb motions, then for an order setting aside tbe special verdict, and granting a new trial.
Plaintiff, after verdict, moved to amend tbe complaint to ask for damages in tbe sum of $5,750, and moved for judgment in favor of tbe plaintiff for tbe sum of $4,500 and costs., Tbe court granted judgment in favor of tbe plaintiff for $4,500 and costs. Judgment was entered accordingly, and this is an appeal from sucb judgment.
JR. N. Van Doren of Milwaukee, for tbe appellant.
For tbe respondent there was a brief by Martin, Martin & Martin of Green Bay, and oral argument by P. H. Martin.

Opinion:
SiebeciceR, J.
Tbe defendant asks tbis court most earnestly that we re-examine tbe grounds of tbe decision on the former appeal of tbis ease, and insists that the rule of law therein applied to tbe case is contrary to tbe established law of the federal and state adjudications on tbe subject. It is-contended that tbe decision on tbe former appeal, holding that tbe amendment of tbe plaintiff's complaint there involved did not constitute a departure from tbe cause of action alleged in tbe original complaint, should be modified,' and that this court should now bold that tbe amendment of tbe complaint introduced a different cause of action from tbe one originally stated, and that tbe two-year limitation of the-federal statute effectively barred the cause of action alleged in the amended complaint. Upon consideration of tbe questions presented we are satisfied that tbe former decision of tbis court must stand as declaring tbe law applicable to the case and that tbe trial court properly applied the law to tbe litigated issues.
It is contended that tbe sum awarded by tbe jury in diminution of plaintiff's damages on account of bis failure to exercise ordinary care is wholly inadequate. We have examined the record and the claims of tbe appellant on tbis point. It is considered that the verdict of the jury on the question of damages is justified by the facts and circumstances of the case and that it should not he disturbed..
By the Court. — The judgment is affirmed.