TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Madole v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.

Glen G. Madole v. Chicago, Rock Island Pacific Railway Company. [Fn1]

Madole v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. Ry. Co., 201 N.W. 937 (Minn. 1925)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 23, 1925
Docket
No. 24,457.
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
201 N.W. 937161 Minn. 5351925 Minn. LEXIS 591

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

*536 PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, 23 years of age, is married, has one child, and at the time of his injury lived at Iowa Falls, in the state of Iowa. He had been in the employ of defendant at that place, as car inspector, for about 15 months. On December 13, 1923, while in the act of adjusting a defective coupling between two ears, the locomotive, without warning, backed up and pushed the cars together in such a manner that plaintiff’s hand was injured so as to necessitate amputation above the wrist. Plaintiff was first taken to a hospital in Iowa Falls, and then to a hospital in Chicago where he remained until December 26th, during which time he suffered much pain and agony. On that day his left arm was amputated above the wrist. The wound did not heal properly. On January 5 he was removed to a hospital in Minneapolis where he remained until the latter part of February, when a second amputation was made. During this time several incisions were made in the arm for the purpose of drainage. Thereafter the arm healed up, but his elbow remained stiff. He suffered a great deal of pain.

The only question presented by this appeal is the amount of the verdict. The trial appears to have been fair. The evidence was given to the jury without any apparent disturbing event. We find nothing in the rec'ord unusual or tending to create any prejudice in the minds of the jury. The verdict was for $15,000, which is a large amount of money. We discover no reason for interference with the verdict by this court. It was approved by the trial court.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1925: 11933: 11934: 11941: 119252026peak 1925 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Brown v. Murphy Transfer & Storage Co.251 N.W. 5 (Minn. 1933)
  2. Roy v. Oregon Short Line R. R. Co.42 P.2d 476 (Idaho 1934)
  3. Jaenisch v. Vigen297 N.W. 29 (Minn. 1941)
  4. Nenno v. Decoster201 N.W. 937 (Minn. 1925)

Most recent

  1. Jaenisch v. Vigen297 N.W. 29 (Minn. 1941)
  2. Roy v. Oregon Short Line R. R. Co.42 P.2d 476 (Idaho 1934)
  3. Brown v. Murphy Transfer & Storage Co.251 N.W. 5 (Minn. 1933)
  4. Nenno v. Decoster201 N.W. 937 (Minn. 1925)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Nenno v. Decoster, 201 N.W. 937 (Minn. 1925) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list