Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Randle

• Decision Date: 24 March 1927
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 736
• Parties: ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN R. CO. v. RANDLE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

112 So. 112

215 Ala. 535

ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN R. CO. v. RANDLE.

6 Div. 736

Supreme Court of Alabama

March 24, 1927

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Bessemer Division J.C.B. Gwin, Judge.

Action by Isham B. Randle against the Alabama Great Southern Railroad Company. From a judgment granting plaintiff's motion for a new trial after a verdict for plaintiff in an insufficient amount, defendant appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals. Affirmed.

The appellee sued the appellant for damages for injuries to his person, and resulting loss of time and earnings in his business, and also for damage done to his automobile; the gravamen of the action being the negligence of the defendant simple and wanton, in running its train against the automobile in which plaintiff was riding. The trial was on the wanton count only.

The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for $1,000, and judgment was rendered accordingly. Plaintiff moved the court to set aside the verdict and judgment, and to grant him a new trial, assigning therefor numerous grounds among others that "the amount awarded the plaintiff is entirely inadequate to the injuries and damage sustained by him," and that "the jury awarded an insufficient amount to fairly and reasonably compensate plaintiff for the damage sustained."

George Schwartz, a witness for plaintiff, testified about the automobile as follows:

"I am in the automobile business. Mr. Randle had a Chevrolet car, a Chevrolet sedan. I was familiar with his car at the time it was injured. It would be hard for me to say what the reasonable market value of that car was immediately before it was injured, because I had never examined the car closely, although he had it in the shop a few days, and we put a new fender on, but in appearance it was in good shape. I would say that its reasonable market value at that time was around $700. I saw the car immediately after it was injured, and at that time I would not have considered it worth anything but scrap, and as scrap it would not bring but from $10 to $25; that is what you get for a scrap car. It was a Chevrolet car that got hit down there and not a Ford sedan. The front side of it was hit, on the right-hand side of the car, the side away from the driver. The driver sits on the left-hand side of the car and the front part of the car was injured, and the body was broken in two at the front door; it received its blow along even with the front door. I saw the car down on the railroad."

The evidence, in so far as the hospital bill is concerned, is as follows:

"I paid my bill at the hospital of $103.90. I think that was a reasonable bill; in my judgment it was. I had two special nurses, and I paid them separate from the hospital bill. My wife wrote the check for that, and I have a list of it here if it is admissible. Mrs. Miller was the night nurse, she was paid $50; and Mrs. Jackson was the day nurse, she was paid $55. My wife wrote the check and paid the nurses $105."

Plaintiff testified with reference to his business as follows:

"In this tailoring business that I started I did it alone; I handled a line of woolens. I would show the woolens, sell the suit, take the customer's measure, and send it in, and then get the suit and deliver it to the customer, and some of it I sold on credit and some for cash. There was no one else participating in the business. I was not engaged in any other business, but gave all of my time to that business, six days a week, during the eight or nine years before I was injured, and I worked around Bessemer here."

As to his earnings in that business, he testified that during the twelve months preceeding his injuries his average income was $175 a month, and that prior to that time his average income therefrom was $150 a month.

The evidence showed that plaintiff suffered painful and extensive physical injuries, including seven broken ribs, a lacerated scalp, and bruises of the abdominal wall; that he remained in the hospital for thirteen days, under treatment; that he then went to his home and remained confined to his bed for about two months; and that he had not done any work since his injury, which occurred about seven months before the trial.

The trial court granted the motion, and defendant appeals from that judgment.

Ben G. Perry, of Bessemer, and Stokely, Scrivner, Dominick & Smith, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Mathews & Mathews, of Bessemer, and Black & Fort, of Birmingham, for appellee.

SOMERVILLE J.

In the matter of setting aside verdicts because of the inadequacy of the damages awarded, this court has adopted the rule laid down in Moseley v. Jamison, 68 Miss. 336, 8 So. 745:

"It may be conceded that where there is no standard for measuring damages, and no certain rule can be prescribed for the guidance of the jury, the court should not ordinarily grant a new trial, although the damages awarded by the jury appear to be manifestly too small. In such case of incertitude in the measure of damages, the matter must be left to the discretion of the jury; nor should its verdict be disturbed on its finding, *** except in the cases when it has been

...