Opinion
Nos. 32,401, 32,402.
September 27, 1940.
Appeal and error — review — second verdict — approval by trial court.
Carrier — action for injuries — sufficiency of evidence.
Where two juries have found verdicts for plaintiffs, the second verdict, approved by the trial court, will not be interfered with by us unless the evidence is demonstrably false or not entitled to credence. Evidence held sufficient to sustain the verdicts.
Two actions in the district court for Winona county, tried together and consolidated on appeal, by Elizabeth and Sylvester Becker, husband and wife, against defendant as trustee of the Chicago North Western Railway Company, to recover for injuries sustained by the wife in a fall at defendant's depot in Winona, and for consequential damages sustained by the husband. The cases were tried before Karl Finkelnburg, Judge, and a jury. After verdicts of $850 and $150 in favor of the wife and husband, respectively, defendant appealed from the judgments entered. Affirmed.
William T. Faricy, Warren Newcome, and Alfred E. Rietz, for appellant.
Webber, George, Owen Brehmer, for respondents.
In actions tried together, Elizabeth Becker was awarded a verdict for personal injuries sustained when she fell down the steps leading from the platform of defendant's railroad station, and her husband recovered for loss of services and necessary medical expenses. The trial court denied defendant's motions for judgments notwithstanding the verdicts, and these appeals were taken from the judgments subsequently entered.
This is the second appeal of these cases. In Becker v. Megan, 204 Minn. 283, 283 N.W. 401, after verdicts for these plaintiffs, defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding or new trial in each case, and appeals were taken from the trial court's orders denying the motions. The court reviewed the evidence at some length and deemed it insufficient to sustain the excessive verdicts which had been awarded and remanded the causes for new trial, although we then stated that there was a jury issue as to liability. The verdicts for plaintiffs on the second trial were much less than those returned in the first and are clearly within reason. The evidence pointing to defendant's negligence is such that perhaps we would have found the other way had we been sitting as jurors; but, in view of the fact that two juries have seen fit to believe it, we deem it not within our province to disturb their finding on this record. Whether certain witnesses are worthy of belief is primarily for the jury and trial court. The testimony on plaintiff's behalf is not demonstrably false nor entitled to no credence. Defendant's liability having been twice determined by different juries, the "verdict of the jury here challenged, approved by the trial court, is entitled to great weight," Pellowski v. Pellowski, 196 Minn. 572, 573, 265 N.W. 440, 441, and we will not disturb it unless palpably false or insufficient. Johnson v. Finch, Van Slyck McConville, 115 Minn. 252, 255, 132 N.W. 276.
Judgments affirmed.