Southwestern Brewery & Ice Co. v. Schmidt, 226 U.S. 162 (1912)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 226 U.S. 157, click here.

Southwestern Brewery and Ice Company v. Schmidt

No. 55

Argued November 14, 15, 1912
Decided December 2, 1912
226 U.S. 162

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE TERRITORY OF NEW MEXICO

Syllabus

A master may remain liable for a certain time for a failure to use reasonable care in furnishing a safe place for the servant to work, notwithstanding the servant’s appreciation of the danger, if he induces the servant to keep on by a promise to remove the source of danger.

Even if it is open, it will require a strong case to induce the appellate court to review the discretion of the trial court in allowing leading questions; in this case, the witness being a foreigner who seemingly did not understand the English language, there is no ground for revision.

This Court will not go behind the decision of the supreme court of a territory upon a matter of local practice in order to reverse the judgment upon a technicality and an assumption contrary to a fact appearing in the record.

In this case, the trial court appears to have properly instructed the jury in regard to damages to which the plaintiff was entitled for personal injury, and did not, as to future pain, etc., go beyond conservative rules laid down in such cases.

The court may, within conservative rules, instruct the jury that they may, in estimating the damages of a plaintiff in a personal injury suit, consider loss of time with reference to ability to earn money, temporary or permanent impairment of capacity to earn money, disfigurement and pain, past or reasonably certain to be suffered in the future. See Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. Lindeman, 143 F. 946.

Where the charge directs that the jury deduct from damages amounts paid under a release executed by plaintiff, if the jury set the release aside, it is immaterial what the amounts so paid represented as the transaction was rescinded by the verdict.

15 N.M. 232 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the validity of a verdict for personal injuries, are stated in the opinion.