Smith v. Lewiston, Augusta & Waterville Street Railway

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Smith v. Lewiston, Augusta & Waterville Street Railway

86 A. 1054, 110 Me. 547, 1913 Me. LEXIS 1

DecidedJune 9, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 86 A. 1054 (Smith v. Lewiston, Augusta & Waterville Street Railway) 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

Smith v. Lewiston, Augusta & Waterville Street Railway, 86 A. 1054, 110 Me. 547, 1913 Me. LEXIS 1 (Me. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff obtained a verdict for $2900 for injuries received while a passenger in a car of the defendant. The liability of the defendant is not seriously controverted. The injuries consisted of a fractured clavicle; and a possible damage to the ribs which produced neuralgic pains. The recovery from the former has been complete, and from [548]*548the latter In ,a large measure. No permanent injuries were received. Taking into consideration all the elements of legal damage as disclosed by the evidence, we think the verdict was manifestly excessive.

McGillicuddy & Morey, for plaintiff. Newell & Skelton, for defendant.

It is therefore: Held, that the defendant’s motion for new trial be sustained, unless within thirty days from the filing of this certificate of decision the the plaintiff remits all of .said verdict in excess of eighteen hundred dollars (1800). So ordered.

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

The plaintiff obtained a verdict for $2900 for injuries received while a passenger in a car of the defendant. The liability of the defendant is not seriously controverted. The injuries consisted of a fractured clavicle; and a possible damage to the ribs which produced neuralgic pains. The recovery from the former has been complete, and from [548]*548the latter In ,a large measure. No permanent injuries were received. Taking into consideration all the elements of legal damage as disclosed by the evidence, we think the verdict was manifestly excessive.

McGillicuddy & Morey, for plaintiff. Newell & Skelton, for defendant.

It is therefore: Held, that the defendant’s motion for new trial be sustained, unless within thirty days from the filing of this certificate of decision the the plaintiff remits all of .said verdict in excess of eighteen hundred dollars (1800). So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 A. 1054, 110 Me. 547, 1913 Me. LEXIS 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-lewiston-augusta-waterville-street-railway-me-1913.