The opinion of the court was delivered by: WILLSON
'First: Motion for Judgment n.o.v.
This motion raises a question of law only. See Marsh v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 5 Cir., 175 F.2d 498. The motion is filed under Rule 50, 28 U.S.C.A., and the question is whether there is any evidence which, if believed, would authorize a verdict against movant. The trial judge in considering those motions does not exercise discretion, but makes a ruling of law, and if he errs the appellate courts may reverse.
The evidence in this case on the issue of liability largely relates to plaintiff's contention that the defendant was negligent in the maintenance of its yard at Brewster, Ohio. Plaintiff introduced evidence showing: that on April 20, 1953, the night he was hurt, he was thirty-five years of age. He was an experienced brakeman, working in the switching yards of the defendant at Brewster. He had been in good physical condition. At about 7:45 P.M., railroad time, as night was approaching and in the early darkness, but with electric lights turned on, plaintiff was riding on the footboard on the front end of a switching engine. The engine was moving at a speed of between five and ten miles per hour. However, the engine was moving in reverse, so that plaintiff was looking to the rear of the engine, but in the direction in which he was riding. As the engine arrived at a point opposite a switchman's shanty, plaintiff stepped off the footboard to line up a switch, and in doing so his right foot, in touching the ground, came in contact with a soft spot. He said that his right foot went out from under him and he hit the ground, landing on his buttocks, very close to the end, but not touching either the rail or any of the ties.
Considerable testimony was directed to a description of the area in which plaintiff received his injury. The spot on the ground was described variously as soggy, wet, soft, a spot of mud and water, a hump, and a spot generally muddy. Plaintiff and his witnesses testified as to the general condition of the ground in and about the ties and along the tracks in the walking areas in the Brewster Yard. There was testimony on the part of the plaintiff that it had been raining for approximately a week before the accident but there was some uncertainty as to whether it has rained that day or evening. There was evidence on the part of the plaintiff that in the wet seasons of the year especially, engines and cars passing over the rails on the Brewster Yard tracks, pumped up water and mud from underneath the ties so that generally, in the spring of the year at least, the walking areas which the switchmen were required to use in getting off and on engines and cars were in an unsafe condition, because wet and muddy and at various times slushy and thus slippery and hazardous. Evidence was also introduced that there was no drainage system whatsoever in the Brewster Yard. Also, there was evidence on the part of the plaintiff that the only ballast used was cinders and ashes which came from the locomotives, and that a good or better grade of ballast was available nearby.
The foregoing is a brief summary of evidence on the part of plaintiff to establish negligence of defendant. As plaintiff had the verdict of the jury, he is entitled to have the evidence read in the light most advantageous to him, all conflicts therein being resolved in his favor and he must be given the benefit of every fact and inference which may reasonably be deduced from the evidence. See Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Muldoon, 3 Cir., 102 F.2d 151. On the issue of negligence then, there was ample evidence to support the verdict. It will not be disturbed on that ground.
Defendant cites decisions of the Federal courts which it says clearly establish that when the burden of proof is on the party to a litigation he must do more than produce evidence that creates only a doubt. Commercial Molasses Corp. v. New York Tank Barge Corp., 1941, 314 U.S. 104, 62 S. Ct. 156, 86 L. Ed. 89, and Thomas Roberts & Co. v. Calmar S.S. Corp., D.C.Pa.1945, 59 F.Supp. 203. Defendant also says that where two equally justifiable inferences may be drawn from the facts proven, one for and the other against the plaintiff, neither is proven and the verdict of the jury must be against the plaintiff, who has the burden of proof. Texas Co. v. Hood, 5 Cir., 161 F.2d 618, certiorari denied 332 U.S. 829, 68 S. Ct. 206, 92 L. Ed. 403, and Morrison v. Le Tourneau Co. of Georgia, 5 Cir., 138 F.2d 339.
An examination of the evidence on damages viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff establishes the following: Plaintiff, although realizing that he had been hurt, arose unassisted, discontinued his work and rested in the switchman's shanty. He then finished the shift and went home at about 11:40 the same evening. Plaintiff worked three days after the accident before consulting a doctor or reporting the injury. On the fourth day, plaintiff called upon the company physician, Dr. Hanna, in Brewster. He complained of his back, hips, neck and ankle. The doctor bandaged and taped the plaintiff, prescribed sedatives and advised him to return in a week's time. This treatment did ease the pain to some extent. The plaintiff returned to the doctor, who prescribed more sedatives and advised him to try working for one week. The plaintiff worked from the 5th of May through the 10th, but he then had to quit work because of the pain in his back. Dr. Hanna was advised of this situation and at that time he notified the plaintiff that the X-rays previously taken were negative. On approximately the 25th of May the plaintiff, under the doctor's instructions, returned to work for a six-day period, but his condition was such that he was unable to continue work any longer. At this point he was sent to a Dr. Houk in Cleveland, Ohio by Dr. Hanna, where he received an examination and was sent home.
The plaintiff's attorney sent him to Dr. Philip A. Faix, where he was examined on June 17, 1953 in the doctor's office in Pittsburgh. The plaintiff complained to Dr. Faix of pain running down his left leg and into his foot. The doctor found as an objective symptom a parivertebral spasm in the low back indicating an underlying pathology, and a minor compression fracture to the body of vertebra L 1, which in his opinion was evident in the X-rays taken on that date. The doctor also found definite evidence of diminution of reflexes, particularly in the left leg and ankle. The diagnosis of the doctor, based on these symptoms, was that the plaintiff had a protruded vertebral disc. On January 17, 1954, plaintiff was advised by Dr. Faix that an operation would relieve the difficulty in his lower back.
The plaintiff was admitted to Mercy Hospital in Pittsburgh on February 3, 1954. At that time, Dr. Faix brought in Dr. Floyd Bragdon, a neurosurgeon, as consultant in the case. The continued observations of both doctors indicated disc trouble in the lower back, with possible instability of the spine due to ligamentous damage. On February 12, 1954, Dr. Bragdon operated upon the plaintiff, removing two damaged discs. During the course of the operation it was the opinion of both Dr. Bragdon and Dr. Faix that there was no spinal instability, and Dr. Bragdon found no evidence of root compression. The patient's postoperative convalescence was satisfactory, and on March 4, 1954 he was discharged from the hospital. In the opinion of both doctors the plaintiff had good results from the removal of the discs as far as the pain in his back was concerned. Dr. Faix stated that in his opinion all but fifteen to twenty per cent of the discomfort brought about by the original injury was removed by the operation. Thereafter the plaintiff was examined approximately once a month by both doctors in their respective offices. On May 18, 1954, about three months after the operation, the plaintiff complained to Dr. Bragdon of a recurrence of pain in his back. On his visit to Dr. Bragdon on June 11, 1954, the plaintiff advised him that he experienced a numbness in his feet after walking four to five blocks. The doctor thought it better for the plaintiff not to return to work but recommended convalescence for one to two more months, although he did not testify with regard to any permanent disability. On August 9, 1954, the plaintiff again complained of the numbness in his feet to Dr. Bragdon, who found a vague diminution of pinprick over the left calf on the outer side. Dr. Bragdon's December 3rd examination of the plaintiff disclosed the plaintiff's complaint of lost strength and coordination in his legs after walking Dr. Faix had by this time put wedges in the plaintiff's left shoe as the result of a definite pelvic tilt. Dr. Bragdon then returned the patient to Dr. Faix for whatever treatment he deemed necessary. On March 19, 1955, Dr. Bragdon again examined the plaintiff, who complained to him of a tingling and numbness in his feet and of his inability to control his feet. Dr. Bragdon found no evidence of root compression or root pain on this examination. Thereafter, while in the care of Dr. Faix, it was determined that the left leg of the plaintiff had atrophied; also a bizarre type of reflex spasm was evident on the left side of the plaintiff's spine. The femural pulse on the left side was noted to have diminished in comparison to the right side.
At that point, Dr. Faix concluded that a neurologist should be consulted, and sent the plaintiff to Dr. William S. McCabe, Jr., in Pittsburgh, who conducted a neurological examination on May 15, 1955, and in three subsequent visits in June of 1955. As a result of these examinations, along with a study of the hospital records theretofore compiled, Dr. McCabe found that the ankle jerk and knee jerk on the left leg were diminished and at another time were absent. He also found that the femural pulsation on the left leg was markedly diminished, the left leg was shortened approximately an inch to an inch and a half, and was reduced in circumference in the vicinity of one inch. There was a reduction to a complete loss of the sensory findings on the left leg. He found that the patient walked with a limp and exhibited a marked curvature of the spine. With pressure on the sciatic nerve, there was objective evidence of muscle spasm. It was the doctor's opinion that the patient's contact with the ground definitely had a bearing on the symptoms found. His interpretation of the X-rays taken was that the spine exhibited a curvature as the normal result of the operation. It was Dr. McCabe's opinion, as a neurologist, based on the above symptoms, that there were objective signs of root compression of the cord in the back. He explained that between the first and second protective coverings of the spinal cord, the pia mater and the arachnoid meninges respectively, flows the cerebrospinal fluid which circulates in the subarachnoid space from the brain down through the spine. This fluid serves the purpose of a cushioning agent and also supplies nutrition to the cord proper. Dr. McCabe had an additional myelogram done upon the plaintiff after his diagnosis of compression upon the spinal nervous system. As the result of the myelogram, the attendant X-ray taken, and the other symptoms exhibited, the doctor concluded that there was an impingement on the spinal cord at the level of L 3, since the fluid injected both above and below this vertebra in the subarachnoid space was blocked from passage in either direction. The doctor's diagnosis of this situation was termed arachnoiditis. He stated that it is a slowly progressing and permanent proposition which will lead to a type of paralysis. The doctor testified that a partial paralysis was evident at the time of his examinations. He stated that he would be opposed to an effort to correct the condition by surgery as, in his opinion, surgery would render the plaintiff's back unstable. It was Dr. McCabe's opinion that the plaintiff would be unemployable in the labor market.
Thus it is at once apparent that on the issue of damages there was ample evidence to support the jury's verdict. There is no disagreement among plaintiff's three physicians as to the cause of his disability in the first instance. Surgery was performed. The extent of his recovery was the subject of medical opinion and conclusion. On the extent of the recovery the three physicians for the plaintiff were not entirely in accord in their views, but extent of the recovery was left to the jury in what the court believes were proper instructions, not objected to by the defendant. Therefore, ...