Blazin

Defendant moves for a new trial on two grounds:

1. Excessiveness of the Verdict

I recognize that the trial judge is not a mere arbiter but the question of *21 the amount of damage is primarily for the jury. While the amount of the verdict may be relatively large, it is not so large as to shock the court’s conscience or sense of justice. It will not be set aside.

2. Applicability of the Safety Appliance Act

At the close of all the evidence, I took from the jury the question of the applicability of the Safety Appliance Act and instructed that if the admitted absence of the grabiron caused the plaintiff’s injury, the jury should find for the plaintiff. During the course of the trial I excluded certain evidence, but I believe that the defendant presented the crux of its ease on this point, perhaps in not as dramatic or full sense as it desired, but the skeleton was clearly defined. Defendant contends the instruction was error.

Viewing the evidence most favorably to the defendant, it shows this. The ear Charlottesville was not equipped with a right-hand grabiron which is customarily used by yard men to support them when bending over to uncouple cars. The Charlottesville had been…