Alexander v. McDonald

McCOMB, J.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment in their favor, after trial before a jury, in an action to recover damages for injuries resulting from an automobile accident.

Questions Presented for Review

First:

Was the sum awarded each of the plaintiffs as damages ty the verdict of the jury and judgment thereon inadequate?

[671]

This question cannot be considered by us for the reason that the rule is established that the point that the damages are inadequate cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, but must be presented to the trial court on a motion for a new trial before an appellate court will consider whether the damages are inadequate or not.

(Baum,

v.

Murray,

23 Wn.2d 890 [162 P.2d 801, 807], See also

Wood

v.

Keller,

72 Cal. App.2d 14, 17 [163 P.2d 904] ;

Williams

v.

A. R. G. Bus Co.,

47 Cal.App. 568, 570 [190 P. 1036];

Bate

v.

Jolin,

206 Cal. 504, 508 [274 P. 971]; cases cited in 2 New Cal. Dig., McKinney (1946), Appeal and Error, p. 273, § 237.)

In the instant case plaintiffs did not make a motion for a new trial. Therefore plantiffs did not comply with the foregoing rule and have waived the right to have the question of the inadequacy of the damages considered by this court.

Second:

Is plaintiffs’ contention correct that the trial court erred in refusing to give three instructions on the subject of damages reguested by plaintiffs f