Washington v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.
Before: James
Synopsis
Negligence—Collision op Passenger Cars—Damages—Loss op Earning Power op Physician—Instruction.—In an action for injuries sustained by the collision of passenger cars, where plaintiff alleged that at the time of the injury she was a physician, and that by reason of her injuries she has been unable to follow her profession since the accident, to her damage in the sum of $600, and alleged general damages in the sum of $25,000, where the evidence showed that she had practiced her profession for a number of years prior to the accident, but did not show the amount that she had earned, a requested instruction that the jury, in the absence of proof of such amount, could not take into account the less of earning power, if any had been suffered by the plaintiff, in estimating the amount of damages to be awarded, was properly refused.
In.—Failure op Court to Limit Loss op Earning Power—Other Limiting Instructions—Presumed Action op Jury.—Though the court did not specifically, in its instructions, limit the loss of earning power to $600, yet where they were instructed repeatedly that the amount of damages awarded should not exceed the amount sued for, and the jury had the complaint before them in which the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity was limited to $600, it must be assumed that in estimating the total amount of damages to be allowed, the jury took into consideration the claim of $600 made by plaintiff, and in fact allowed no more than that sum on that account.
JAMES, J.
Plaintiff was awarded a judgment for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered by her through the negligence of defendant. The amount which she was found entitled to recover was the sum of $4,250.
It was admitted by the answer that the collision between the car upon which plaintiff was riding at the time she was injured, and a car of the Los Angeles Railway Company, was caused by the negligence of defendant. The issues, therefore, left for the jury to determine were: 1st. What injuries, if any, were sustained by the plaintiff? and 2d. What amount of money would justly compensate her therefor? Defendant presented to the trial court a motion for a new trial and appealed from the order denying such motion, and also from the judgment entered against it.
The giving of certain instructions, and the refusal of the court to give others offered by the defendant, are assigned as errors.
It was alleged in the complaint that at the time she suffered the injuries complained of the plaintiff was a practicing physician; that by reason of her injuries she had been unable to follow her profession since the accident, and in that respect was damaged in the sum of $600. Damages in all were claimed in the complaint in the sum of $25,600. The evidence showed that the plaintiff was a woman of the age of sixty-seven years; that her business was that of a physician, and that she had practiced her profession for a number of years prior to the date when she sustained the injuries complained of. There was evidence of several witnesses that she attended them at different times professionally. There was no evidence as to the amount of money that plaintiff had earned or was earning in her practice as a physician, and upon this state of
[687]
facts defendant offered an instruction by which it was. sought to have the jury advised that they could not take into account the loss of earning power, if any had been suffered by the plaintiff, in estimating the amount of damages to be awarded. In this behalf it is insisted that without proof of some specific or particular sum of money which had been or was at the time of the accident being earned by the plaintiff, no recovery could be had on this account. A number of decisions of the courts of other states are cited in support of appellant’s view on this proposition, but the question seems to have been very definitely determined adversely to appellant’s contention by the supreme court of this state. In the case of
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)