Masterman v. Portland Railroad

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Masterman v. Portland Railroad

84 A. 1077, 109 Me. 561, 1912 Me. LEXIS 145

DecidedSeptember 16, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 84 A. 1077 (Masterman v. Portland Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Masterman v. Portland Railroad, 84 A. 1077, 109 Me. 561, 1912 Me. LEXIS 145 (Me. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

This case comes up on motion for a new trial, and exceptions. The exceptions are waived. The only point relied upon under the motion is that the verdict for the plaintiff was excessive.

The plaintiff was a passenger upon one of the defendant’s cars when it collided with another car. She was thrown violently upon the street pavement and received very serious injuries. The evidence would warrant a jury in finding that she sustained a fracture of the [562]*562skull. She was unconscious, or only partly conscious, for four or five days, hovering between life and death. The extent of her recovery at the time of the trial was somewhat in dispute. The future 'consequences of the injury are in some respects problematical.

McGillicuddy & Morey, for plaintiff. Libby, Robinson & Ives, for defendant.

Disregarding, as the jury should have done, and as the court must do, all such consequences as are merely possible, of which no more can be predicted than that they may follow, and considering only such damages as the jury were warranted in finding that the plaintiff had sustained up to the time of the trial, and such other damages as the jury might believe, with reasonable certainty, would be sustained in the future, the court is of opinion that the verdict is not so manifestly excessive as to require a new trial. Motion and exceptions overruled.

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

This case comes up on motion for a new trial, and exceptions. The exceptions are waived. The only point relied upon under the motion is that the verdict for the plaintiff was excessive.

The plaintiff was a passenger upon one of the defendant’s cars when it collided with another car. She was thrown violently upon the street pavement and received very serious injuries. The evidence would warrant a jury in finding that she sustained a fracture of the [562]*562skull. She was unconscious, or only partly conscious, for four or five days, hovering between life and death. The extent of her recovery at the time of the trial was somewhat in dispute. The future 'consequences of the injury are in some respects problematical.

McGillicuddy & Morey, for plaintiff. Libby, Robinson & Ives, for defendant.

Disregarding, as the jury should have done, and as the court must do, all such consequences as are merely possible, of which no more can be predicted than that they may follow, and considering only such damages as the jury were warranted in finding that the plaintiff had sustained up to the time of the trial, and such other damages as the jury might believe, with reasonable certainty, would be sustained in the future, the court is of opinion that the verdict is not so manifestly excessive as to require a new trial. Motion and exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 A. 1077, 109 Me. 561, 1912 Me. LEXIS 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masterman-v-portland-railroad-me-1912.