J. G. (Jabez Gridley) Sutherland.

A treatise on the law of damages : embracing an elementary exposition of the law, and also its application to particular subjects of contract and tort (Volume 4) online

. (page 125 of 132)
Online LibraryJ. G. (Jabez Gridley) SutherlandA treatise on the law of damages : embracing an elementary exposition of the law, and also its application to particular subjects of contract and tort (Volume 4) → online text (page 125 of 132)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

0. (N.S.) 382, aflirmed by the su- 29 Cramer v. Danielson, 99 Mich,

preme court. 531.

§ 1255] PEESONAL INJURY. 4789

A wife's troatniPiit of lior Imsbmid or hor conduct toward the
property of the person who nnhiwfully sold him liquors is not
material to her recovery because not connected with the STihject
of the action.^" If the previous habits or condition of the
plaintiff had been such as to lessen the probability of a com-
plete recovery from the effects of the injury, or to prolong- or
ac,;cTavate the suffering caused by it the fact cannot be shown in
mitigation of damages. ^^ But it has been held that evidence as
to the intoxication of the plaintiff" at the time of tlie injury is
competent as part of the res gesia^^^ and of his intoxication on
other occasions as bearing upon the question of his capacity to
earn money, but for no other jiurpose.^^ In an action by a wife
on the bond of a liquor dealer to recover for the loss of means of
support resulting from the sale of liquor to her husband the fact
that he drank to excess prior to the time the sales in question
were made may be proved.** The rule which prevails in com-
mon-law actions for injuries to the person, that the possession of
capital or property by the person injured has no bearing upon
the scope of his recovery, does not apply in an action under
such a statute ; hence it is competent, as bearing upon the extent
of the injury, to the means of support of the plaintiff to show
that she had re-married or that shortly after the death of her
first husband she had become possessed of property adequate for
her support.*^ Where the action under a civil damage act is by
a child of the intoxicated person it may be shown that the
mother of the plaintiff had received a sum of money since
the death of her husband ; but not that it was recovered from the
defendant because of his death.*® The fact that the plaintiff was
committing a technical trespass on the lands of a third party

SOGough V. State, 32 Ind. App. Co., 112 Mich. 40, 45, 40 L.R.A.

22. 131; Herrick v. Wixom, 121 Mich.

31 Littlehale V. Dix, 11 Cush. 364 ; 384, 390, 6 Am. Neg. Rep. 576;

Sullivan v. Marin, 175 Mass. 422, 7 Union Pac. R. Co. v. Reese, 5 O. C

Am. Neg. Rep. 261; St. Ix)uis S. R. A. 510, 56 Fed. 288.

Co. V. Smith, 102 Ark. 562; Same 34 i^idrich v. Gilmore, 35 Neb.

V. Lewis, 91 Ark. 343. 288.

82 Williams v. Edmunds, 75 Mich. 35 Sliarpley v. Brown, 43 Hun

92, 16 Am. Neg. Cas. 83. 374: Stevens v. Cheney, 36 id. 1.

33 Kingston v, Ft. Wayne, etc. R. 36 gecor v. Taylor, 41 Hun 123.


does not mitigate the liability of an officer for an assault and
battery in making an arrest.^' The age, capacity and intelli-
gence of an injured child are to be regarded in determining
whether he" exercised ordinary care in seeking restoration to
health ; he is not to be charged with the negligence of his parents
in this regard.^* ^i

The right to recover damages for an intentional and unlaw-
ful assault and battery is not affected because the plaintiff took
no care to avoid an invasion of his rights.'^ The damages for
abducting a female child and causing her to be debauched may
be mitigated by proof of the child's dissolute character and
that of her f amily.*° In actions to obtain damages for maiming,
disfigurement or impairment of working capacity, if the injured
person was employed in doing labor, or was able to fill an
accustomed position, or any other to which he must resort as a
consequence of the injury, everything which illustrates the effect
thereof to lessen or enhance its prejudicial consequences is
admissible.*^ The injured person is not bound to work in order
to mitigate the liability of the wrong-doer, though his ability to
do so may be shown.*^ Tt is presumed prima facie, that a
person engaged in a different service from that he was in when
injured is receiving the full value of his labor.*' The juiy may
consider without speculative evidence what occupation may
prove congenial to the plaintiff if his condition improves, the
inability to follow his o^vn occupation being apparent.** Where
death has followed the injury the present worth of the intes-
tate's earnings during his probable lifetime are not to be
lessened by his living expenses.*^

The recovery for pain and suffering is materially affected by

37 Lamb v. Stoiip, 95 Wis. 2.54. v. Carothers, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1673;

38 Clark V. Chicago, 174 111. 145. Carlton v. St. Louis & S. R. Co.,
39Stcinmetz v. Kelly, 72 Ind. 442, 12S Mo. App. 451.

.37 Am. Rep. 170; Whitehead v. 42 Missouri, etc. R. Co. v. Flood

Mathaway, 85 Ind. 85. (Tex. Civ. App.), 70 S. W. 331.

40 Dobson V. Cothran, 34 S. C. 43 Roth v. Buettell, 142 Iowa 212.
518. 44 0'Conner v. Chicago, etc. R.

41 Wallingford v. Kaiser, 191 N. Co., 144 Iowa 289; Grconway v.
y. 392, 123 Am. St. GOO, 15 L.R.A. Taylor County, 144 Iowa 3.12.
(N.S.) 1126; The Oriflamme, 3 46 Davis v. Michigan Cent. R. Co.,
Sawyer 397; Louisville & K. R. Co. 147 Mich. 479.

ft 125G] PERSONAL INJURY. 4791

the death of the injured person pending the action."*' A corpo-
ration does not lessen its liability for an assault made by one
of its servants because the latter had been fined therefor." It
is otherwise in sonic states where the defendant has been
punished by a fine." The fact that a person seriously and
permanently hurt possesses mental qualifications and acquire-
ments which enable him, temporarily at least, to earn more
money than he previously received as wages, is not cause for
reducing the amount recovered by him.*' The fact that a
person who has been injured in two accidents has recovered
against the person liable for the first, compensation for the dam-
age sustained by the second does not mitigate the liability of the
party responsible for the latter. This rule prevails though the
plaintiff committed perjury in the action.^" It is immaterial to
the liability of the defendant that the plaintiff has received sick
benefits or insurance," or that the latter is being supported at
the expense of the public,^^ or that the wages of the plaintiff
were paid by his employer while he was disabled.^^ Where the
pleadings raise the issue of lost time by an injured servant the
master may show that he paid him his wages for all or a portion
of the time.^* The assignment of part of the sum to be recovered
to attorneys does not lessen the liability of the wrong-doer to the
administrator of the person injured who in-osecutes the action

after the latter's death.*^

§ 1256. Province of the jury concerning damages, and
instructions thereto. There being no legal measure of damages

46 Waggoner v. Sneed (Tex. Civ. N. C. C. A. 183; Missouri, etc R Co_.
App.), 138 S. W. 219. V. Flood, 35 Tex. Civ. App. 197, 1/

47 Hanson v. Urbana & C. E. St. Am. Neg. Rep. 673; Dempsoy v.
R. Co., 75 111. App. 474. Baltimore & 0. R. Co., 219 Fed. 619.

48 Armstrong v. Rhoades, 4 See § 158.

Pennew. (Del.) 151. See § 402. 52 Toledo v. Fuller, 7 Oluo C. C.

49 Chicago City R. Co. v. Tay- (N.S.) 598.

lor, 68 111. App. 613, aff'd 170 III. ^3 St. Louis, etc. R Co. - Chftord

(Tex. Civ. App.), 148 S. W . 1103;

60 Post V. Hartford St. W. Co., 72 § 158; Pittsburgh, C, C. & St. L. R.
Conn 36'> Co. v. Bir, 56 Ind. App. 598.

61 Baltimore City P. M. Co. v. 54 Bell-K. C. Co. v. Gregory,
Baer, 90 Md. 97; Simpson v. Ky. 415.
Foundation Co., 201 N. Y. 479, 2 55 Waggoner v. Sneed, supra.



[§ 1256

for pain and siiflFering, disfigurement, outraged feelings and
invasion of the right of personal security, the amount which a
jury may award as compensation for these elements of damage
is peculiarly within their discretion/® The tendency in recent
•years has been for juries to award and courts to sustain increas-
ingly larger sums as compensation for personal injuries.
''This is attributable, no doubt, to the greatly decreased pur-
chasing power of a dollar, as exemplified in the rise of the price
of nearly all commodities, and the enormous increase in the
cost of living; and, in some measure, perhaps, to a higher
regard for human life and the value of physical efficiency." "
The fact that there has been a tendency to increased liberality
in the award of damages for serious personal injuries has been
noticed by the courts, as has the fact that the latter show an
increased hesitation to interfere therewith if the amounts are
not clearly arbitrary and in unquestioned disproportion to the
injury.^^ The jury should exercise a calm and dispassionate
judgment in view of all the facts established by the evidence,^'
under the instructions of the court, supplemented by their
knowledge, observation and experience in the affairs of life,^
as applicable to the facts and circumstances proven.®^ The

56 Hull V. Douglass, 79 Conn. 2G6;
Kniglit V. Continental Auto. Mfg.
Co., 82 Conn. 291; Atoka C. & M.
Co. V. Miller, 7 Ind. T. 104; Al-
diieh V. Palmer, 24 Cal. 513; Illi-
nois Cent. R. Co. v. Barron, 5 Wall.
90, 18 L. ed. 591; §§ 459, 4G0, 942.

57 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Wil-
liams, 183 Ala. 138.

In Hays v. United Rys. Co. of St.
Louis, 183 Mo. App. 608, the court
took into consideration the fact that
tlie purchasing power of the dollar
at the time of the rendition of the
decision in an earlier case was about
double that at the time of the trial
of the instant case.

58 Long V. Ottiiiiiwa R. & L. Co.,
I(i2 Iowa 11.

59 Parricono v. Greco, 115 La. 558.
The jury must be governed by tho

evidence. St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v.
Dallas, 93 Ark. 209.

60 Birmingham R., L. & P. Co. v.
Humphries, 171 Ala. 291 ; Southern
R. Co. V. Davis, 132 Ga. 812;
Springfield Con. R. Co. v. Iloefl'ner,
175 111. 034; North Chicago St. R.
Co. v. Fitzgibbons, 180 111. 406; Bal-
timore, etc. R. Co. v. Keck, 84 111.
App. 159, 169.

Gi Sheffield Co. v. Harris, 183 Ala.
3.'37; Southern Bell Tel. & T. Co. v.
Shamos, 12 Ga. App. 463 ; Smith v.
Chicago City R. Co., 165 111. App.
190; Xilson v. Kalispell, 47 Mont,
416; Muskogee El. T. Co. v. Muel-
ler, 39 Okla. 63; North Chicago St.
R. Co. V. Fitzgibbons, 79 HI. App.
632, 637 ; laegar v. Metcalf, 11 Ariz.
283; Zibbell v. Southern Pac. Co.,
160 Cal. 237 i Scally v. Garratt, 11

f 12561



parties arc eiitilleJ to the jiKliiiiiciit of the jnry, and it is not
within the province of the court to decide on the amount of
damages.^^ Though two previous verdicts rendered upon the

Cal. App. 138: Atlantic & B. R. Co.
V. Johnson, 125 Ga. 483: Same v.
J)ouglas, 119 Ga. 658; Maloney v,
Winston, 18 Idalio 740, 47 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 634; Richardson v. Nelson,
221 111. 254, 20 Am. Neg. Rep. 297;
Indiana U. T. Co. v. Schwinge, 46
Ind. App. 525; Volis v. Shorthill,
130 Iowa 538; Yazoo, etc. R. Co. v.
Wallace, 91 Miss. 492; Sailer v.
Friedman S. Co., 130 Mo. App. 712;
Flinn v. Frederickson, 89 Keb. 563;
Olmstead v. Red Cloud, 86 Neb. 528 ;
Union Pac. R. Co. v. Connolly, 77
Neb. 254; Powell v. Nevada, etc. R.
Co., 28 Nev. 4U, 17 Am. Neg. Rep.
628; Stanton v. Parkersburg, 66
W. Va. 393 (it seems). Compare
Helland v. Bridenstine, 55 Wash.

Direct evidence of mental suflFer-
ing is not necessary where the in-
jury is serious and its effect perma-
nent. St. Louis S. R. Co. V. Cleland,
50 Tex. Civ. App. 499. But it is
error to instruct the jury that evi-
dence will not modify verdicts when
pain and suffering and deformity
are elements of damago. "Damages
for pain and suffering incident to an
injury can only be awarded upon
sufficient proof," by which the jury
must be guided. W^allace v. Penn-
sylvania Co., 219 Pa. 327.

In the absence of evidence as to
the earning capacity of a minor the
award for permanent injury must
be in accordance with the con-
sciences of the jurors as enlightened
by the facts and circumstances in
evidence. Atlanta, etc. R. Co. v.
Gardner, 122 Ga. 82.

62 Dow V. Oroville, 22 Cal. App.
215; Walters v. Chicago, etc. R. Co.,

47 Mont. 501; Muskogee F. T. Co. v.
Reed, 35 Okla. 334; Continental O.
& C. Co. V. Gilliam (Te.x. Civ.
App.), 151 S. W. 890; Southwestern
Tel. & T. Co. V. Shirley (Tex. Civ.
App.), 155 S. W. 663; Birmingham
R., L. & P. Co. V. Rutledge, 142 Ala.
195; Shaw v. Southern Pac. R. Co.,
157 Cal. 240; Kimic v. San Jose-L.
G. I. ]^ Co., 150 Cal. 273: James
V. Oakland T. Co., 10 Cal. App. 785;
Ilcrspcrgcr v. Pacific L. Co., 4 Cal.
App. 460; Colorado Springs, etc. R.
Co. V. Petit, 37 Colo. 326, 20 Am.
Neg. Rep. 496; Denver Con. E. Co.
V. Lawrence, 31 Colo. 301; Mer-
chants' & M.'s T. Co. V. Corcoran, 4
Ga. App. 654; Maw v. Coast L. Co.,
19 Idaho 396; Van Vrankin v. Kan-
sas City E. R. Co., 84 Kan. 287;
Lannon v. Chicago, 159 111. App.
595; Cleveland, etc. R. Co. v. Lynn,
177 Ind. 311; Beardmore v. Barton,
108 Minn. 28; Lindsay v. Kansas
City, 195 Mo. 166; W^iechter v. St.
Louis, etc. R. Co.. 113 Mo. App.
270 ; Burch v. Southern Pac. Co., 32
Nev. 75; McGahie v. Sprout, 111
App. Div. (N. Y.) 445; Jones v.
New York Cent., etc. R. Co., 99 App.
Div. (N. Y.) 1; Lake Shore, etc.
R. Co. V. Burtscher, 8 Ohio C. C.
(N.S.) 137; St. Louis, etc. R. Co.
V. Richards, 23 Okla. 256, 23 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 1032; Freeman v. Cleary
(Tex. Civ. App.), 136 S. W. 521;
Lemoine v. Sullivan (Tex. Civ.
App.), 134 S. W. 946; Galveston,
etc. R. Co. V. Greb (Tex. Civ. App.),
132 S. W. 489; Texas & G. R. Co. v.
Hall, 58 Tex. Civ. App. 598; San
Antonio, etc. R. Co. v. Spencer, 55
Tex. Civ. App. 456; Southern R. Co.
V. Smith, 107 Va. 553; Norfolk R.



[§ 1256

same evidence have been set aside because excessive, the court
cannot interpose to prevent a repetition of a finding of the same
or a larger amount of damages.®^ Tlic right to a verdict, in
tlie absence of a legal measure of damages, is not at all dependent
upun offering affirmative evidence of the damages suffered in
dollars and cents.^* Generally courts will not set aside verdicts
on the ground that the damages are excessive or inadequate
unless it is apparent that the jury acted under some bias,
prejudice or improper influence, or have made some mistake of
fact or law.®^ This doctrine has special force if the case calls

& L. Co. V. Spratley, 103 Va. 379,
19 Am. Neg. Rep. 514; Dukette v.
Xorthwestern W. Co., 61 Wash. 95;
Normile v. Wheeling T. Co., 57
W. Va. 132, 68 L.R.A. 901 ; Liulvig-
son V. Superior S. Co., 147 Wis. 34;
Southern Indiana G. Co. v. Tyner,
49 Ind. App. 475; Ward v. Black-
wood, 48 Ark. 396; Georgia Pac. R.
Co. V. Freeman, 83 Ga. 583, 14 Am.
Neg. Cas. 220; Kelsey v. Hay, 84
Ind. 189; Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v.
Sponier, 85 id. 165; Redfield v. Red-
field, 75 Iowa 435; Chicago & A. R.
Co. V. Fisher, 38 111. App. 33, 9 Am.
Neg. Cas. 248; Kimball v. Bath, 38
Me. 219, 61 Am. Dec. 243; McKinley
V. Chicago, etc. R, Co., 44 Iowa 322,
8 Am. Neg. Cas. 253 ; Butler v. Ban-
gor. 67 Me. 385; Jacobs v. Bangor,
16 id. 187, 33 Am. Dec. 652; Shar-
tle V. Minneapolis, 17 Minn. 308;
Wightman v. Providence, 1 ClifT.
530; Chicago v. Smith, 48 111. 107;
Gale V. New York, etc. R. Co., 13
Hun 1, 12 Am. Neg. Cas. 365; Weis-
enberg v. Appleton, 26 Wis. 56;
§ 459; Richmond & D. R. Co. v.
Allison, 89 Ga. 567, 11 L.R.A. 43;
Montgomery & E. R. Co. v. Mallette,
92 Ala. 209, 217. See Lane v. Hoi-
man, 145 Mass. 221.

63 Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Minor,
69 Miss. 710, 720, 16 L.R.A. 627.

64 Bell V. Gulf & C. R. Co., 76

Miss. 71; Tarr v. Oregon S. L. R.
Co., 14 Idaho 192, 125 Am. St. 151;
Pratt V. Davis, 224 111. 300, 7 L.R.A.
(N.S.) 609; Hobbs v. Marion, 123
Iowa 726; Jones v. Peterson, 44 Ore.
161; Broadway C. M. Co. v. Robin-
son, 150 Ky. 707; Johnson v. Gron-
din, 170 Mich. 447 (mental suffer-
ing under civil damage act) ; Rau-
hala V. Maki, 172 Mich. 112. See
§ 1252 and note.

Specific proof of pain and suf-
fering need not be made. They jare
well shown by the nature, character
and extent of the injuries sustained.
Burley v. Menefee, 129 Mo. App.

65 Liles V. Montgomery T. Co., 7
Ala. App. 537; Scragg v. Sallee, 24
Cal. App. 133; Southern Bell Tel. &
T. Co. V. Davis, 12 Ga. App. 28;
Crooks V. Tazewell Coal Co., 263 111.
343; Shaw v. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 173
111. App. 107; Harcourt v. Redmon,
149 Ky. 612; Hamilton v. Pacific
Drug Co., 78 Wash. 689; Williams
V. Spokane, 73 Wash. 237; Marks
V. Mason Co., 73 Wash. 437; Kus-
mir v. Pressed Steel C. Co., 201
Fed. 146; Carberry v. Acme T. Co.,
203 id. 780; Montgomery T. Co. v
Knabc, 15« Ala. 458; Colorado
Springs E. Co. v. Soper, 38 Colo.
126; Southern R. Co. v. Brock, 132
Ga. 858; Central R. Co. v. Mote,

§ l-^5(jj



for the allowance of punitive, as well as compensatory, dam-
ages.®^ One or other of the grounds of ol)je(ition to the verdict
must be suggested to the reviewing eoui't ''at the first blush," ^

]31 Ga. 166; Seaboard A. L. R. v.
Miller, 5 Ga. App. 402; Pittsburgh,
etc. K. Co. V. Lightheiser, 1(JS Iiid.
43S: Michigan City v. Phillips, 163
Ind. 440; Rice v. Council Bluffs,
124 Iowa 039; Louisville & N. R.
Co. V. Reaume, 128 Ky. 90; Kroe-
ger V. Passmore, 36 Mont. 504, 14
L.R.A.(X.S.) 988; Olson v. Nebras-
ka Tel. Co., 87 Neb. 593; Citizens'
R. Co. V. Griffin, 49 Tex. Civ. App.
569; Central R. Co. v. White, 175
Ala. 60, citing the text. Cases cited
in first note to this section; Wood-
ward V. Consolidated T. Co., 17 Pa.
Super. Ot. 576; Coleman v. South-
wick, 9 Johns. 45, 6 Am. Dec. 253;
Stephens v. Hudson Valley K. Co.,
48 N. Y. St. Rep. 814; Hallack v.
Johnson, 12 Colo. 244; Chicago,
etc. R. Co. V. Barrett, 16 111. App.
17, 8 Am. Neg. Cas. 195; East St.
Louis & C. R. Co. V. Frazier, 26 111.
App. 437; Welch v. McAllister, 15
Mo. App. 492; Honeycutt v. St.
I^uis, etc. R. Co., 40 id. 374; Bit-
ner v. Utah Cent. R. Co., 4 Utah
.502, 12 Am. Neg. Cas. 626; Cor-
coran V. Harran, 55 Wis. 120;
Smalley v. Appleton, 75 Wis. 18;
McLean v. Lewiston, 8 Idaho 472 ;
Collin v. Varila, 8 Tex. Oiv. App.
417, 420, quoting the text; Morgan
V. Southern Pac. Co., 95 Cal. 501,
2 Am. Neg. Cas. 196, 17 L.R.A. 71;
Leo v. Same, 101 Cal. 118, 13 Am.
Neg. t'as. 334; Clare v. Sacramento
E. P. & L. Co., 122 Cal. 504, 5 Am.
Neg. Rep. 115; Roche v. Redington,
125 Cal. 174; East Tennessee, etc.
R. Co. v. King, 88 Ga. 443; Illinois
Cent. R. Co. v. Cheek, 152 Ind. 663,
678; Frankfort v. Coleman, 19 Ind.
App. 368, 37."); Lauter v. Duck-
worth, 19 Jnd. App. 535, 543; Mt.

Vernon v. Hoohii, 22 Ind. App. 282,
287; Indianajiolis v. Marold, 25 Ind.
App. 428; Donnelly v. Booth, 90 Me.
110, 2 Am. Neg. Rep. 791; St.
Joseph, etc. R. Co. v. Hedge, 44
Neb. 448, 461, 9 Am. Neg. Cas. 550;
Finletter v. Philadelphia T. Co., 19
Piiila. 413; Galveston, etc. R. Co. v.
Hynes, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 34, 6 Am.
Neg. Rep. 208; Richmond R. & E.
Co. V. Gartliright, 92 Va. 627, 635,
32 L.R.A. 220; Norfolk & W. R. Co.
v. Ampey, 93 Va. 108, 136, 53 Am.
St. 839; Norfolk v. Johnakin, 94
Va. 285; Smith v. Pittsburgh & W.
R. Co., 90 Fed. 783; Lambkin v.
Southeastern R. Co., 5 App. Cas.
352, reversing the judgment of
the queen's bench division which
awarded a new trial on the ground
of the excessivcness of the dam-
ages. See White v. Chicago, M. &
P. S. R. Co., 49 Mont. 419.

The fact that the jury awarded
$3,000 more than the plaintiff's
counsel suggested in his closing ar-
gument is not conclusive as to tlio
existence of passion or prejudice.
Oglcsby V. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 150
Mo. 137, 162.

66 Louisville & N. R. Co. v. AVill-
iams, 183 Ala. 138; Bogue v. Gun-
derson, 30 S. D. 1 ; Hickey v. Booth,
29 R. I. 466, 132 Am. St. 832; Ste-
vens V. Friedman, 58 W. Va. 78;
Newport News & M. V. R. Co. v.
Dentzel's Adm'r, 12 Ky. L. Rep. 626.

67 Rowland v. Oakland Con. St.
R. Co., 110 Cal. 513; Freeman v.
Grashel (Tex. Civ. App.), 145 S. W.
695; City of Indianapolis v. Stokes,
182 Ind. 31; Interstate C. Co. v.
Addington, 149 Ky. 120. See Fitch
v. Hutr, 134 C. C. A. 31, 218 Fed.



[§ 1256

and with sucli force as to make the court morally certain of its
existence.^* But a verdict which awards an excessive or inade-
quate sum is subject to the control of the court; and where
some of the elements of damage which might have been con-
sidered by the jurv have been ignored and the verdict is for a
less amount than the plaintiff is clearly entitled to, it will be
set aside although there has been no misdirection by the court
or misconduct or miscalculation on the part of the jury.®^ The
same reluctance is manifested against setting a verdict aside
because of the inadequacy of the amount awarded as exists
where the objection is that the award is excessive.'" It will be
assumed that the jury found every fact to mitigate or reduce
the damages which the evidence warranted.'^

There is no al)s»ilute rule to determine whether a verdict
awards an excessive amount or not. It has been held tliat if the
sum allowed is much above or greatly below the average that it
is fair to infer, unless the case presents extraordinary features,
that partiality, prejudice, or some other improper motive has
led the jury astray.'^ And if there have been two or more

"A verdict should not be set aside
simply because it is excessive in the
mind of the court, but onlj' when the
excess is shocking to a sound judg-
ment and a sense of fairness to the
defendant. Where there is any mar-
gin for a reasonable diflcrence in
tlie matter the view of tlie court
should yield to the verdict of the
jury rather than tlie contrary.'
Lake Shore, etc. R. Co. v. Schultz
19 Ohio C. C. 39; Massillon I. & S
Oo. V. Wiegand, 15 Ohio C. C
(N.S.) 417.

68 Galveston, etc. R. Co. v. Han
sen, 58 Tex. Civ. App. 584.

69 Anglim v. Columbus, 128 Ga.
460; Aboltin v. Heney, 02 ^Yasll.
65; Phillips v. Southwestern R. Co.,

4 Q. B. Div. 400, s. c. sub nom.
Phillips V. London, etc. R. Co.,

5 id. 78; Moseley v. Jamison,
08 Miss. 336; Smith v. Dittiiian,
16 Daly 427; Hanson v. Urbana

& C. E. St. R. Co., 75 111. App. 474.
Substantial, and not merely nom-
inal damages, should be awarded for
■an unprovoked and unjustified as-
sault. Cochran v. Mitchem, 143 Ga.

70 Sclimidt V. Kentucky River
.Mills, 142 Ky. 80; McGowan v. In-
terstate Con. St. R. Co., 20 R. I.
264, 3 Am. Neg. Rep. 737; Archi-
bald V. Pruden, 7 Vict. L. R. (law)

'Jhe Louisiana Supreme Court will
increase the award if it deems it in-
adoquate. Englert v. New Orleans
R. & L. Co., 128 La. 473.

71 McDermott v. Chicago & N. R.
Co., 85 Wis. 102, 7 Am. Neg. Cas.
268; Robinson v. Waupaca, 77
Wis. 544.

72 Rueping v. Chicago, etc. R. Co.,
110 Wis. 625; Jennings v. Van
Schaick, 13 Ualy 7; Lockwood v.
Twenty-third St. R. Co., 15 id. 374,

§ 125G]



trials of an action and the evidence has not been materially
different as to the extent of the plaintiff's injuries a large dis-
crepancy between the final and the previous awards will
authorize the reversal of a judgment for an amount greatly in
excess of that first awarded/^ if the evidence was substantially
the same on each trial.'''* If two or more verdicts have been
returned in the same action for the same sum the last one M'ill
not be disturbed."'^ It is a common thing for the reviewing
courts to endeavor to arrive at the sum which is a fair average
of compensation in similar cases by resorting to common knowl-

5 Am. Neg. Cas. 755; Atchison,
etc. R. Co. V. Rowc, 56 Kan. 411, 15
Am. Neg. Cas. 133; Central R. Co.
V. White, 175 Ala. GO, quoting tiie
text; Denver, etc. R. Co. v. Scott,
34 Colo. 99, 18 Am. Neg. Rep. 345;
Maloney v. Winston, 18 Idaho 740;
Indianapolis T. & T. Co. v. Monze,
173 Ind. 31; Reems v. New Orleans
G. N. R. Co., 126 La. 511; Texas,
etc. R. Co. V. Conway, 44 Tex. Civ.
App. 68. See Zibbell v. Southern
Pac. Co., 160 Oal. 237.

73 Langbein • V. Swift, 121 Fed.
416; Smith v. Day, 136 Fed. 964;
Tunnel M. & L. Co. v. Cooper, 50
Colo. 390, 39 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1064;
Baker v. Madison, 62 Wis. 137,
Richmond & D. R. Co. v. Allison, 89
Ga. 567, 58 Am. St. 319; Chats-
worth V. Rowe, 66 111. App. 55. See
McLimans v. Lancaster, 63 Wis.

In Louisville W. Co. v. Upton, 18
Ky. L. Rep. 326, the first verdict,
for $10,000, was set aside because
excessive. A second verdict for
$6,750 was set aside for the same
reason. Tlie third verdict was for
$3,000, and was sustained on a cross-
appeal by the plaintiff from the

Online LibraryJ. G. (Jabez Gridley) SutherlandA treatise on the law of damages : embracing an elementary exposition of the law, and also its application to particular subjects of contract and tort (Volume 4) → online text (page 125 of 132)