Ware v. McPherson

PRESTON, J.

This case is appealed upon the sole ground that the verdict of the jury, awarding plaintiff #3,000 damages for personal injuries received when hit by defendants’ automobile, is excessive. Defendants claim that the trial court erred in denying their motion for new trial based upon the above contention and asked for a reversal of the judgment entered upon said verdict or for reduction of the award.

It is elementary that in such cases as this the amount of damages is committed first to the sound discretion of the jury and next to the discretion of the trial judge in ruling upon the motion for new trial. Upon appeal their decision cannot be set aside unless the verdict is so grossly disproportionate to any reasonable limit of compensation warranted by the facts as to shock the sense of justice and raise at once a strong presumption that it is based on prejudice or passion rather than sober judgment; that is, unless the verdict is so plainly and outrageously excessive as to suggest, at the first blush, passion or prejudice or corruption on the part of the jury

(Martin

v.

Shea,

182 Cal. 130, 139 [187 Pac. 23];

Hale

v.

San Bernardino etc. Co.,

156 Cal. 713, 715 [106 Pac.

83]; Lahti

v.

McMenamin,

204 Cal. 415, 419 [268 Pac. 644]).

We are of the opinion that in fixing the verdict in this case the jury were moved by none of the above elements and that their discretion and that of the trial court was properly exercised under the conflicting evidence adduced upon the subject of the extent and permanence of plaintiff’s injuries. We shall, therefore, close this discussion with a brief statement of plaintiff’s injuries and the severity of his experience as shown by some of the competent evidence

[122]