Ingram v. Higgins
Before: Wilson
WILSON,
J.—Defendant has appealed from a judgment rendered against him for damages for personal injuries inflicted upon plaintiff,
†
[289]
Plaintiff is a police officer of the city of Los Angeles. At an early morning hour defendant and a woman companion were traveling eastward on Riverside Drive in Los Angeles. Plaintiff was traveling in the same direction. He was not on duty or in uniform. Defendant was “weaving” from side to side across the highway in an erratic manner. Plaintiff drove alongside defendant’s ear, showed his police badge and ordered defendant to stop. Defendant did not stop until plaintiff drew a pistol. Plaintiff ordered defendant to get out of his ear and when the latter did so he struck plaintiff with a wine bottle and then jumped back into his automobile and drove'it against plaintiff causing serious injuries. Plaintiff pursued defendant and with the aid of a citizen arrested him.
Without merit is defendant’s contention that the amount of $2,500 for actual damages is excessive. There is no rule governing the award of damages for personal injuries except that the amount shall not be so large as to indicate an abuse of discretion by the trial court. A reviewing court will not interfere unless the judgment is obviously so disproportionate to the injuries received as to justify the belief that it is not the result of cool and dispassionate discretion of the trier of facts.
(Phelps
v.
Arnold,
112 Cal.App. 518, 520 [297 P. 31].) Plaintiff suffered a severe bruise on his hip and left shoulder, a sacroiliac injury and a displacement of the sacroiliac bone which caused pressure on a nerve. At the time of trial his suffering had not entirely abated and he testified he must lie on his right hip in order to sleep. Plaintiff was treated at the receiving hospital and did not incur any medical bills. He therefore does not make any claim for special damages. He was forced to be absent from his duties for 30 days, thereby losing his vacation. At the end of that period he went back to work but was unable to continue and had to be off duty again, receiving shots and orthopedic treatments. The judgment for actual damages is not excessive.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)