White v. Columbia and Montour Electric Railway Company, Appellant.
Negligence — Street railways — Passengers—Jerk of car — Province of court and jury — Exorbitant verdict — New trial.
In an action against a street railway company by a passenger to recover damages for personal injuries, the case is for the jury where the plaintiff and her daughter testify that the car started before plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to be seated, and that the jerk of the car threw the mother down and caused the injuries complained of.
The appellate court will not reverse a judgment on a verdict though of opinion that it is exorbitant, where no abuse of discretion has been committed by the trial court.
Argued April 10, 1906.
Appeal, No. 84, Jan. T., 1906, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Columbia Co., Sept. T., 1905, No. 107, on verdict for plaintiff in case of George White and Emily D. White v. The Columbia and Montour Electric Railway Company.
Before Mitchell, C. J., Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.
Affirmed.
*463May 24, 1906 :
Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Staples, P. J., specially presiding.
At the trial the jury returned a verdict of @5,000 for George White and @7,000 for Emily D. White.
The court refused a motion for judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto.
Hrror assigned was (1) in discharging rule for judgment for defendant non obstante veredicto, and (2) in overruling motion for a new trial.
William H. Sponsler, with him A. W. .Dug and Grant Herring, for appellant.
Paul J. Sherwood, for appellees, was not heard.
Per Curiam,
Appellant’s argument on the refusal of the court below to enter judgment for the defendant non obstante veredicto is based on the proposition that a mere description or characterization of the jerk in starting the car as excessive is not sufficient to prove negligence. But this overlooks the testimony of the plaintiff and her daughter, following the description of the jerk, that the car started before plaintiff had reasonable opportunity to be seated and that the jerk threw the mother down and caused the injuries complained of. The testimony of experienced witnesses as to the character of the jerk might well persuade the jury that the plaintiff’s account was exaggerated, but it could not take the issue out of the province of the jury to decide.
The amount of the verdict was exorbitant, especially that for the husband, and in view of the circumstances and testimony casting such very serious doubt on the honesty and good faith of the claim, if we sat on the motion for a new trial we should unhesitatingly grant it. But the court below, in whose province it was, considered the matter carefully, did not feel called upon to interfere, and in this view there was no abuse of discretion which would justify us in so doing.
Judgment affirmed.