Alt v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.

Citations

• 5 S.D. 20
• 57 N.W. 1126
• 1894 S.D. LEXIS 26

Syllabus

<p>1. To the instructions of the coui't the plaintiff took the following exception: “Plaintiff excepts to-all of the charges and. to the special request asked by defendant for the reason that they are liable to mislead the jury, and for the reason that the jury in its verdict would pass upon these questions.” Held, that plaintiff was not entitled to have any question regarding the instructions considered by the trial court on a motion for a new trial, for the reason that the exceptions taken were too general to he available on appeal to this court.</p> <p>2. Plaintiff’s counsel specified, in his motion for a new trial “that the verdict is contrai’y to the law and the facts, in that the negligence of the defendant was the proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff, and that there is no evidence in the case that shows that the plaintiff was guilty of any negligence whatever.” Held, to sufficiently conform to the requirements of our statute in that regard.</p> <p>3. To judicially determine a question of negligence both a court and a jury are required. While the jury is the judge of the facts viewed in the light of the law, as a rule no verdict should stand when, in the sound judgment of the trial court, it operates as a wrong between the parties which might be remedied upon a retrial.</p> <p>4. The question to be determined by this court, where the refusal of a trial court to direct a verdict is raised on appeal, is whether such court was justified, in the exercise of its best judgment and sound discretion, in concluding that different fair-minded men might reasonably arrive at different conclusions from a careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances in evidence at the time the case was submitted to the jury.</p> <p>5. An application for a new trial upon the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his discretion will only he reviewed by this court in case of manifest