Sanford v. Wilcox

SPENCE, J.

In this action to recover damages for personal injuries, plaintiff was awarded a verdict in the sum of $3,000. Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the amount awarded and moved for a new trial because of the alleged inadequacy of the damages. The trial court made its order granting a new trial on the issue of damages alone. Defendant appeals from said order.

Appellant does not question the power of a trial court to grant a new trial limiting the issue to that of damages alone.

(Tumelty

v.

Peerless Stages,

96 Cal. App. 530 [274 Pac. 430]; sec. 657, Code Civ. Proc.) Appellant contends, however, that the order granting the motion in the present ease was “an abuse of judicial discretion” because “the verdict is not so grossly inadequate as to indicate that it is the result of passion or prejudice or inadequate at all”. We believe, however, that on this appeal from an order granting a new trial, we are not concerned with the question of whether the verdict was so grossly inadequate as to indicate that it was the result of passion or prejudice but rather with the question of whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that the award was inadequate. This was clearly stated in the recent decision in

Hoffmann

v.

Lane,

11 Cal. App. (2d) 655 [54 Pac. (2d) 477], where the court reviewed the decision in

Peri

v.

Culley,

119 Cal. App. 117 [6 Pac. (2d) 86], and said, “It was there decided that a trial judge may grant a new trial if he is satisfied from the evidence that the award is not legally adequate or commensurate with the injuries, and he is not limited in the exercise of such power to awards so grossly inadequate as to raise an inference of passion or prejudice.”

In appellant’s statement of the questions involved in this appeal, he states the facts as follows: “Plaintiff, a pedestrian, was struck by defendant’s automobile while crossing a street; she proved special damages amounting to $1,283.81.

[195]