Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Newsome

Eighth Circuit

Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Newsome

154 F. 665, 83 C.C.A. 422, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4575

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 13, 1907

DocketNo. 2,462

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 154 F. 665 (Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Newsome) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Newsome, 154 F. 665, 83 C.C.A. 422, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4575 (8th Cir. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

Newsome, who was stealing a ride on a railroad train, says he was required to get off while the train was in raind motion by wanton and malicious threats of personal violence by a in Aeman, and in doing so fell between the cars and was injured, j le ".ued for damages, and secured a verdict and judgment. In charging the jury the trial court said that, if he was entitled to recover at all, he might recover for “the pain and suffering which he had had to endure on account of the injury, or will be likely to have to endure hereafter.” This part of the charge was excepted to, and it is erroneous. The rule of C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. De Clow, 124 Fed. 142, 61 C. C. A. 34, restated in C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Lindeman, 143 Fed. 946, 75 C. C. A. 18, is that the future pain and suffering for which recovery may be had must be such as are reasonably certain to result, not such as may result or are merely probable or likely. The error in the instruction compels a reversal, and we refrain from considering the other assignments of error, since the matters mentioned in them may not arise again.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

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

HOOK, Circuit Judge.

Newsome, who was stealing a ride on a railroad train, says he was required to get off while the train was in raind motion by wanton and malicious threats of personal violence by a in Aeman, and in doing so fell between the cars and was injured, j le ".ued for damages, and secured a verdict and judgment. In charging the jury the trial court said that, if he was entitled to recover at all, he might recover for “the pain and suffering which he had had to endure on account of the injury, or will be likely to have to endure hereafter.” This part of the charge was excepted to, and it is erroneous. The rule of C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. De Clow, 124 Fed. 142, 61 C. C. A. 34, restated in C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Lindeman, 143 Fed. 946, 75 C. C. A. 18, is that the future pain and suffering for which recovery may be had must be such as are reasonably certain to result, not such as may result or are merely probable or likely. The error in the instruction compels a reversal, and we refrain from considering the other assignments of error, since the matters mentioned in them may not arise again.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 F. 665, 83 C.C.A. 422, 1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chicago-m-st-p-ry-co-v-newsome-ca8-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack