Alexander v. Alexander, Civ. A. No. 1649.
| Court | United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | Holcombe & Bomar, Spartanburg, S. C., Price & Poag, Greenville, S. C., for defendant |
| Citation | 131 F. Supp. 605 |
| Parties | Verna Cook ALEXANDER, Plaintiff, v. Alonzo B. ALEXANDER, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 09 May 1955 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 1649. |
131 F. Supp. 605
Verna Cook ALEXANDER, Plaintiff,
v.
Alonzo B. ALEXANDER, Defendant.
Civ. A. No. 1649.
United States District Court W. D. South Carolina, Spartanburg Division.
May 9, 1955.
Sam R. Watt, Kerr & Evins, Spartanburg, S. C., Redfearn & Ferrell, Miami, Fla., for plaintiff.
Holcombe & Bomar, Spartanburg, S. C., Price & Poag, Greenville, S. C., for defendant.
WYCHE, Chief Judge.
The above case is before me upon the motion of the defendant "to set aside the verdict and the judgment entered thereon," and "to have judgment for the Defendant entered in accordance with his motion for a directed verdict", and, "in the event the Court should fail to order judgment for the Defendant under Rule 50(b) 28 U.S.C.A. the Defendant moves the Court for a new trial" on the grounds set out in the motion.
By agreement of the parties the motions were submitted upon written briefs, after a careful consideration of which, it is my opinion that the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be denied, and
It is so ordered,
and that the motion for a new trial upon the first six grounds and the eighth ground should be denied, and
It is so ordered.
As to the seventh ground, the defendant moves for a new trial upon the ground, "The verdict for $175,000 actual damages and $75,000 punitive damages is `so grossly excessive as to be explained only on the basis of sentiment, sympathy and prejudice'".
Courts have, and sometimes exercise, the power to set aside verdicts on the ground of excessiveness, yet it is a power to be cautiously used. Brown v. Evans, C.C., 17 F. 912, affirmed, Evans v. Brown, 109 U.S. 180, 3 S.Ct. 83, 27 L.Ed. 898; Jones v. Atlantic Refining Co., D.C., 53 F.Supp. 17. Courts in general are most reluctant to disturb a jury's verdict on the ground of excessiveness where the damages are unliquidated and there is no fixed measure of mathematical certainty. This is particularly significant with respect to damages in tort actions for personal injuries. Armit v. Loveland, 3 Cir., 115 F.2d 308, 314; Jones v. Atlantic Refining Co., D.C., 55 F.Supp. 17. And, this is equally true in actions for damages for malicious prosecution.
As to the verdict for $175,000 actual damages, it would be mere speculation for me to say that it could be "explained only on the basis of sentiment, sympathy and prejudice".
How much actual damages should be awarded to the plaintiff in this case for the mental anguish she suffered for fear
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alexander v. Alexander, Civ. A. No. 1649.
...unless plaintiff remitted of record the sum of $87,500, actual damages, which was done within the time prescribed in the order. D.C., 131 F.Supp. 605. Plaintiff appealed from the judgment and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the testimony and evidence of t......
-
United States v. Hornick, Crim. No. 18042.
...one more point that should be mentioned, namely, that concerning scienter. This was clearly settled by the Supreme Court in Rosen v. 131 F. Supp. 605 United States, supra, 161 U.S. at pages 41-42, 16 S.Ct. at page "This request for instructions was intended to announce the proposition ......
-
Alexander v. Alexander, Civ. A. No. 1649.
...unless plaintiff remitted of record the sum of $87,500, actual damages, which was done within the time prescribed in the order. D.C., 131 F.Supp. 605. Plaintiff appealed from the judgment and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the testimony and evidence of t......
-
United States v. Hornick, Crim. No. 18042.
...one more point that should be mentioned, namely, that concerning scienter. This was clearly settled by the Supreme Court in Rosen v. 131 F. Supp. 605 United States, supra, 161 U.S. at pages 41-42, 16 S.Ct. at page "This request for instructions was intended to announce the proposition ......