Klein v. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. (1909) · DecisionDepot

Klein v. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Dec 22, 1909 No. Civ. No. 725.Published

Before: Allen

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict regarding the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries and that the trial court did not err in its rulings on special interrogatories or jury instructions.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict regarding the cause and extent of the plaintiff's injuries.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to submit a specific special interrogatory to the jury.
Whether the jury's verdict was excessive.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Where a conflict exists, appellate courts will not weigh evidence and determine its sufficiency or insufficiency as a matter of law.”

“The general verdict did not imply a finding in the regard stated. It was neither an issue nor was it a material fact”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order denying a new trial. Walter Bordwell, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

ALLEN, P. J.

This is an action for damages on account of personal injuries, it being averred that plaintiff, a passenger on defendant’s train, which collided with another train through defendant’s negligence, was, by such collision, thrown from his seat against the opposite seat and on the floor of the ear, thereby sustaining injuries in the back, lower abdomen, a shock to the nervous system, a sprain of the back, a double inguinal hernia, together with other internal injuries, permanently affecting and impairing his health, and by which he is disabled for life.

The cause was tried by a jury and a verdict in plaintiff's favor for $8,500 returned, upon which verdict a judgment was entered January 21, 1908. A motion for a new trial was denied, and from the judgment and the order denying a new trial defendant gave notice of appeal on July 21, 1909.

The principal claim of appellant is that the testimony of plaintiff bears the imprint of falsity, and the jury should have rejected the same, and that the corroborative testimony is insufficient, when taken in connection with plaintiff’s evidence, to sustain the verdict. It is evident from an examination of the record that many inaccuracies and inconsistencies are observable in the testimony of plaintiff; in fact, serious contradictions of former statements and former testimony are made to appear. But the verdict does not rest upon the evidence of plaintiff alone, as was the case in

Missouri Pac. Ry. Co.

Somers,

71 Tex. 700, [9 S. W. 741].

The negligence which occasioned the collision was conceded upon the trial, and, as stated by the trial court to the jury, the only issues to be determined were, whether or not all or any of the injuries complained of by plaintiff were proximately caused by such collision, and, if so caused, what damages should be assessed) therefor. There was testimony by plaintiff and other witnesses, some of whom were disinterested, to the effect that before the accident plaintiff had the appearance of being a well man and was able to work and undergo great physical effort without apparent fatigue. As his wife expressed it, “he was the picture of health.” There is other testimony, that of a physician who made an

[288]

Related research

examination of plaintiff as early as 1903, who testified that at the time he had no organic disease, and his only affliction seemed to he a nervous condition produced by overwork and worry. There is nothing in the record indicating that in the interval between that examination and the collision any serious change had been produced in his physical condition, unless it be assumed from certain expert testimony which was introduced upon the part of defendant tending to show that certain physical defects were of long standing. The jury, in considering this evidence in connection with the other evidence in the case, and in answering certain special interrogatories submitted by the court, determined, as may be inferred from such answers to the special interrogatories, that plaintiff before the injury complained of was afflicted with nervous and stomach trouble, but that the same was exaggerated by the collision. They further found, however, that a rupture and a bowel trouble were both caused by the collision, and that plaintiff was permanently injured and diseased, and the same were caused by the collision. There is evidence in the record warranting such answers to the special interrogatories. There is also evidence in the record tending to show that after the collision medical examinations developed that, in addition to a complete rupture, plaintiff “had an ataxia,” and was suffering “from hemianesthesia and from chronic peritonitis”; and it is in evidence that all of these ailments might be attributed to a sudden shock or injury. There was independent testimony showing at the time of the collision plaintiff was thrown from his seat on to the floor of the ear; that his appearance after the accident was such as to indicate great suffering. Considering the entire record, the evidence was such as to justify the jury in determining that the injuries were proximately caused by the collision, and that the answers to the various special interrogatories as to his ailments and their cause had support from the evidence.

AI Brief

Synopsis

ALLEN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief