Marshall v. Smith

GRAY, J.,

pro

tem.

A jury awarded respondent dam ages in the sum of five thousand dollars for injuries received by her in a collision between an automobile in which she was riding as a guest and another owned and operated by appellant. Prom the judgment entered on such verdict the latter appeals, urging as grounds for reversal: (1) That the amount of the verdict is grossly excessive and was based upon passion and prejudice; (2) that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict; and (3) that the instruction on damages is erroneous.

“ Where a verdict is attacked for insufficiency of evidence, the power of the appellate court begins and ends with the inquiry whether there is substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which in and of itself will support the conclusion reached by the jury.

(Treadwell

v.

Nickel,

194 Cal. 243, 260 [228 Pac. 25];

Hatzakorzian

v.

Rucker-Futter Desk Co.,

197 Cal. 82 [239 Pac. 709, 41 A. L. R. 1027].) . . . The question of excessive damages is one which is first addressed to the trial court, and appellate courts can interfere only when the damages are so exorbitant as to suggest, at first blush, passion, prejudice or corruption on the part of the jury.”

(Kleem

v.

Chapot,

112 Cal. App. 553, 556 [297 Pac. 574, 575].) Here, as in the cited case, a motion for a new trial was denied by the trial court and the

[260]

evidence not only supports the verdict but fails to show it to

be

excessive.