Prescott v. Hines
Prescott v. Hines
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
This is an action for personal injuries, and was tried before County Judge Whaley, and a jury, at the January term of Court, 1920, and resulted in a verdict for plaintiff for $1,667.75. At close of plaintiff’s evidence a motion for nonsuit was made by the defendant, which motion was' overruled. ' At the close of the case a motion for a directed verdict was made by the defendant, which motion was refused. After entry of judgment, defendant appealed and by 10 exceptions imputes error.. -.
“The exceptions are 10 in number, but in reality raise' only three questions, to wit: (1) Could a reasonable inference be drawn from the testimony of any actionable negligence on the part of defendant? (Exceptions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.) (2) Was the trial Court in error in charging the jury in effect that the plaintiff could be guilty of contributory negligence only through the agency of the driver of the automobile? (Exceptions 9 and 10.) (3) Was the verdict excessive. (Exception 8.)”
As to exceptions 9 and 10: These exceptions are overruled, under the particular facts of the case. His Honor correctly stated the law, and we see no error on his part, as complained of.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- PRESCOTT v. HINES, DIRECTOR GENERAL
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Railroads — Negligence in Leaving Standing Cars Held Question for .Jury. — Evidence that at night, when there was a fog or smoke obscuring the place, a railroad train, into which an auto ran, was left standing across a principal street, with no light or watchman, is sufficient to go to the jury on the question of negligence. 2. Appeal and Error — Amount of Damages for Personal Injury Not Reviewable, Unless Outrageous. — Amount of damages awarded by verdict for personal injury is not reviewable, unless it be made to appear that it is so outrageous and capricous as to shock the reviewing Court’s ideas of right and justice.