Walker v. Beaumont Land & Water Co.

Carrier of Passengers — Injury to Passenger — Presumed Negligence—Burden of Proof.-—In an action by a passenger for damages on account of personal injuries alleged to have been occasioned through the negligence of the carrier of passengers, the presumption of negligence which attaches to the carrier when a passenger is injured by the use of the instrumentalities employed by the carrier and under its care requires the carrier to prove that the injury was without negligence on its part, and that the damage was occasioned by inevitable casualty, or by some cause which human foresight could not prevent.

Id.—Stage-coach Overturned—Verdict for Plaintiff—Evidence— Eright of Team—Order Granting New Trial—Discretion not Abused.—Where plaintiff was injured by the overturning of a stagecoach in which he was a passenger, and, after verdict for plaintiff, the court granted to the defendant a new trial, its order cannot be said to be an abuse of discretion, where there is evidence in the record tending to prove that the accident was occasioned by the stage-coach team becoming frightened and unmanageable, in view of a loose horse running in the highway; that the team used by the carrier was otherwise safe and gentle; that the driver was competent, experienced and careful, and did all a prudent man could do to avert the accident, and that the vehicle used was fit and proper for the purposes intended.

Id.—Province of Court in Granting New Trial.—The court having heard the evidence, and having had ample opportunity to judge as to the demeanor, manner and credibility of the witnesses, may, if he is dissatisfied with the verdict, and is of opinion that it is clearly against the weight of the evidence, set it aside and grant a new trial, even though there be a substantial conflict in the evidence.

Id.—Wide Discretion of Trial Judge—Action Warranted.—A wide discretion reposes in the trial judge to grant a new trial for insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, and except an abuse thereof is apparent, his order will not be disturbed. It is held, from an examination of the entire record upon the appeal, that he was fully warranted in his conclusion as to the order made, and it must be affirmed.