Smith v. Pittsburgh & W. Ry. Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio
On-Motion for New Trial.
1Opinion of the CourtHammond, J.
With reluctance, I have concluded to overrule the motion for a new trial. That-reluctance grows out of the size of the verdict, and not at all out of any suggested errors of the court in the instructions to the jury, which were as favorable to the defendant as could he reasonably expected, under the proof in the case.
If the plaintiff had been of mature years when the injury occurred, the court might suggest a remittitur, if she chose to accept it, as was done in Wood v. Railroad Co., 88 Fed. 44, and very much for the same reason. But there the brakeman, although without negligence in his own…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Railroad Co. v. StoutSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Northern Pacific Railroad v. HerbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Union Pacific Railway Co. v. McDonaldSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Kennon v. GilmerSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Arkansas Valley Land & Cattle Co. v. MannSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Jones v. Atlantic Refining Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1944
- Lacey v. BeckSuperior Court of Delaware · 1960
- Burns v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1934
- Kowtko v. Delaware and Hudson Railroad Corp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1955
- Davis v. ZuckerOhio Court of Appeals · 1951
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.