Babcock v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.

30 N.W. 449, 36 Minn. 147, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 264
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedDecember 6, 1886
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 30 N.W. 449 (Babcock v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Babcock v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co., 30 N.W. 449, 36 Minn. 147, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 264 (Mich. 1886).

Opinion

Gileillan, C. J.

Action for an injury caused by being thrown from a sleigh, in consequence of a defective crossing on defendant’s railroad. Plaintiff, in her complaint, alleges that she “was thereby severely hurt, lamed, and bruised, in and about her back, shoulders, and head, and ever since then till now she has been and still is sick, lame, and- sore, and unfitted for manual labor and attending to her household duties, and by reason thereof has suffered great pain of body and mind; and that she is advised and believes that she will be permanently disabled thereby, and will always suffer therefrom, and be wholly or partially rendered unfit and unable to perform her household duties by reason thereof.”

Under these allegations, it was proper for plaintiff to prove that, as a consequence of the injury, she suffered from “nervous prostration,” "spinal irritation,” and “torpidity of the liver.” It is not a question of general damages, or of special damages requiring to be pleaded. Without any more full statement of the symptoms and details of the injury, she could prove in what,way and to what extent she was rendered sick and lame and unfit for manual labor, and suffered pain of body and mind, and is likely to be permanently disabled. To require any more detailed statement would lead to prolix [148]*148pleading, and be unnecessary to apprise defendant of what it might expect on the trial.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Allen v. Bland
168 S.W. 35 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1914)
Evertson v. McKay
144 N.W. 950 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1914)
Oölitic Stone Co. v. Ridge
91 N.E. 944 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1910)
Cudahy Packing Co. v. Broadbent
79 P. 126 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1905)
Muth ex. of Reuter v. St. Louis & Meramec River Railroad
87 Mo. App. 422 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 N.W. 449, 36 Minn. 147, 1886 Minn. LEXIS 264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/babcock-v-st-paul-minneapolis-manitoba-railway-co-minn-1886.