Lee v. S. Pac. R.R. Co.

Citations

• 101 Cal. 118
• 35 P. 572
• 1894 Cal. LEXIS 993

Syllabus

<p>Negligence—Damages—Province of Jury—Excessive Verdict.—In actions for negligence, the law does not attempt to fix any precise rules for ascertaining what is a just compensation, but from the necessity of the case, leaves the assessment of the damages to the good sense and judgment of the jury, whose province it is to make the assessment; and their verdict, though subject to review, will not be disturbed merely upon the ground that the damages are excessive, nor because the opinion of the court differs from that of the jury, unless it appears that the excess was given under the influence of passion or prejudice.</p> <p>Id.—Order Granting a New Trial—Discretion.—The appellate court in reviewing the action of the court below, in granting a new trial for damages appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice, will not reverse the order merely because it differs from the trial court as to what would have been just compensation, unless the difference of opinion is such as to justify the conclusion that the court abused its discretion.</p> <p>Id.—Defective Machinery—Assumption of Risk—Knowledge of Employee.—In order to constitute an asumption of the risk of defective machinery by an employee, such as to bar a recovery for personal injuries received therefrom, it is not only necessary that the employee should know of the defects in the machinery, but the danger arising from the defects must also be known or reasonably apprehended by him.</p>