Neel v. San Antonio Community Hospital
Before: Monroe
MONROE, J. pro tem.
*
The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for injuries received as a result of malpractice. She alleged in substance that while she was a patient
[235]
in the defendant hospital the defendant Katherine Lenz, a nurse employed by the hospital, negligently put hydrochloric acid into the plaintiff’s nose instead of nose drops, causing injury for which she sought general damages in the amount of $7,500 and special damages by way of medical expense and loss of earnings. The case was tried by the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $700. Plaintiff’s motion for new trial was denied and plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff’s main contention is that the damages awarded are inadequate and that the evidence in that regard is insufficient to sustain the judgment.
There was considerable conflict in the testimony, particularly with regard to the question of damages. Medical evidence was introduced on behalf of the plaintiff to the effect that it was the opinion of a physician that sinusitis suffered by the plaintiff was a proximate result of burns received by her in the hospital and that the condition complained of persisted for many months. Without going into detail, it is sufficient to say that there is evidence in the record which would support a judgment in a considerably larger amount. This court, however, is not concerned with the weight of the testimony. That matter, and particularly with reference to the amount of damages] is one primarily addressed to the trial court.
“Normally, the appellate court has no power to interfere except when thé facts before it suggest passion, prejudice or corruption upon the part of the jury, or where the uncontradicted evidence demonstrates that the award is insufficient as a matter of law.’’
(Gersick
v.
Shilling,
97 Cal.App.2d 641 645 [218 P.2d 583].)
The evidence which supports the amount of judgment may be briefly stated as follows: The plaintiff was a woman who had suffered many physical ailments over a number of years previous. She was highly nervous. She had undergone considerable major surgery and was subject to allergic spells. A large portion of her stomach had been removed in prior surgery. She had suffered from sinusitis for about a year previous to the accident in question. “The immediate reason for her hospitalization was on account of injuries received by falling down a flight of stairs.
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)