Beard v. Williams

• Decision Date: 03 June 1935
• Docket Number: 31772
• Citation: 172 Miss. 880,161 So. 750
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: BEARD et al. v. WILLIAMS

161 So. 750

172 Miss. 880

BEARD et al. v. WILLIAMS

No. 31772

Supreme Court of Mississippi

June 3, 1935

Division B

1 EVIDENCE.

Where no physician is called for injured person, though many physicians are available, and extent of injury would depend largely on physician's testimony, inference is warranted that injured person would have called physician had injuries been serious.

2 EVIDENCE.

Failure of injured party to call physician warrants presumption that physician's testimony, if produced, would be against party's claim, "where many physicians were available.

3 DAMAGES.

Three thousand dollar verdict for injuries to hand held excessive by two thousand dollars, where plaintiff had her hand treated only twice by physician, had no X-ray pictures taken, and introduced no medical testimony, though living in city where numerous physicians were available.

4. NEW TRIAL.

New trial will be granted where court is convinced that jury has been partial or prejudiced or has not responded to reason upon evidence produced.

HON. J. L. TAYLOR, Special Judge.

APPEAL from the circuit court of Harrison county, HON. J. L. TAYLOR, Special Judge.

Suit by Mrs. F. E. Williams against Mrs. Mary A. Beard and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Affirmed on condition of remittitur.

Affirmed, with remittitur.

Leathers & Greaves, of Gulfport, for appellants.

The parties should, when a full panel is presented, be required to challenge peremptorily all of the jurors then in the box whom they desire so to challenge and thereafter be restricted in their challenges to the new jurors added to supply the vacancies.

35 C. J. 299, 415 and 416; Tatum v. Preston, 53 Miss. 653; Funderburk v. State, 75 Miss. 20, 21 So. 658; 35 C. J. 363, 364, 365, 370; George v. State, 39 Miss. 570; 1 L.Ed. 864; Batson v. State, 113 So. 300, 216 Ala. 275; Young v. State, 96 So. 381, 85 Fla. 348; Hodge v. Rambow, 45 So. 678, 155 Ala. 175; State v. Carriere, 74 So. 792, 141 La. 136; Dixon v. State, 143 So. 855, 164 Miss. 540.

The verdict in this case, in the sum of three thousand dollars ($ 3,000) is excessive, and so excessive as to show bias, prejudice and passion on the part of the jury against the appellants.

Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Kennedy, 141 So. 335, 167 Miss. 305; City of Vicksburg v. Scott, 151 So. 914, 168 Miss. 572; Wilson v. Rich, 141 So. 287, 163 Miss. 403.

Bidwell Adam, of Gulfport, and Chalmers Potter, of Jackson, for appellee.

The order in which challenges may be exercised are matters resting in the sound discretion of the court.

Tatum v. Preston, 53 Miss. 654; Barnett v. Wilson, 69 Miss. 611, 10 So. 578.

The verdict is not excessive.

There was no contributory negligence shown on the part of the plaintiff.

The verdict is not so excessive as to show passion, prejudice or ill will.

OPINION

Ethridge, P. J.

The appellee, Mrs. Williams, was plaintiff in the court below and brought suit against the appellants, Mrs. Beard and Mrs. L. S. De Waters, for an injury to appellee's person caused by the collision of her car with the car driven by Mrs. Beard, who was on a mission, car belonging to Mrs. De Waters and being at the time, for the said Mrs. De Waters. This case is a companion case to that of Mrs. Mary A. Beard et al. v. Mrs. Zora Turritin, 173 Miss. 206, 161 So. 688, decided May 27, 1935, the two suits having grown out of the same collision, but with this difference: In the latter case Mrs. Turritin was a guest in the car being driven by Mrs. Beard, while in the case at bar the appellee, Mrs. Williams, was the driver of one of the colliding cars. The car being driven by Mrs. Beard had the right of way at said intersection under the ordinances of the city of Gulfport. Mrs. Williams approached the intersection from the south on Thirty-First avenue, and came practically to a stop at the silent policeman situated at the intersection, and then proceeded into the intersection, although cars being driven along Eleventh street had the right of way.

The evidence is sufficient to show that Mrs. Beard was guilty of negligence in approaching the intersection, although she testified that she saw Mrs. Williams slow down her car, and thought Mrs. Williams was going to give her the right of way at said passage. We think the evidence warrants the inference that both the appellant and the appellee were guilty of negligence and that there was liability as was held in the case of Beard et al. v. Turritin, supra.

In the case at bar there was a judgment for three thousand dollars, and the evidence as to the injury depended upon the testimony of the appellee, Mrs. Williams.

After the collision, Mrs. Williams walked to the hospital and had a physician bandage her hand or arm, and was treated only twice by a physician, which was some time prior to the...