Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Minnesota Supreme Court, 1922

Larson v. Great Northern Railway Co.

Larson v. Great Northern Railway Co.
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 14, 1922 · Holt
153 Minn. 9; 189 N.W. 423; 1922 Minn. LEXIS 721 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

M. L. Countryman and A. L. Jamies, for appellant., Tom Davis, Ernest Michel and Paul D. Stratton, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1970, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Larson v. Great Northern Railway Co.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Holt, J.

While at work as a switchman for defendant in interstate traffic plaintiff’s left hand was crushed in attempting to operate a defective coupler, so that it became necessary to amputate the arm four inches below the elbow. Liability for the injury was conceded at the trial, and the only issue litigated was the amount of the damages to be awarded. The verdict was for $13,750, rendered by a five-sixths jury.

The only ground urged for a new trial is that the verdict is so excessive as to indicate that it was given under the influence of passion and prejudice.

Plaintiff’s earnings for the year preceding the injury were $1,644. He is 26 years old. His education is limited, and opportunity for advancement in railroad operation is gone. No pain or suffering *10except such as might he expected from such an injury as befell plaintiff was experienced by him. His stump healed quickly. The verdict is large, but not so excessive that we may from the amount thereof conclude that the jury were influenced by passion or prejudice. The record suggests nothing that might have actuated the jury other than an honest attempt to fix the damages in accordance with sober judgment. At the trial a witness of defendant who had lost both arms below the elbow demonstrated that with artificial hands the work of the natural members could be done to an extent almost incredible. Such testimony certainly tended to check the desire to award excessive damages. A verdict for $10,500 for the loss of an arm was held not excessive in Larson v. Haglin, 103 Minn. 257, 114 N. W. 958. For a like injury $15,000 was allowed in Greer v. Great Northern Ry. Co. 115 Minn. 213, 132 N. W. 6. In both the injury was greater than in the present case, in that the whole arm was gone, and therefor the assistance that may be had from an artificial hand is unobtainable, but the purchasing power of a dollar was vastly greater then than now. In White v. Chicago, M. & P. S. Ry. Co. 49 Mont. 419, 143 Pac. 561, $15,000 was held not excessive for an injury substantially like plaintiff’s. We are of the opinion that the verdict should not be reduced by us.

We are not impressed with the suggestion of respondent that defendant should be penalized for taking this appeal.

The order is affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.