Crouse v. Smith

• Decision Date: 18 April 1955
• Citation: 113 A.2d 223,381 Pa. 431
• Parties: Larry CROUSE, a Minor, by Gertrude Crouse, his Parent and Guardian, v. Hubert L. SMITH, Original Defendant, Appellant, and Arthur Crouse, Additional Defendant. Appeal of Hubert L. SMITH, Original Defendant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

113 A.2d 223

381 Pa. 431

Larry CROUSE, a Minor, by Gertrude Crouse, his Parent and Guardian, v. Hubert L. SMITH, Original Defendant, Appellant, and Arthur Crouse, Additional Defendant. Appeal of Hubert L. SMITH, Original Defendant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

April 18, 1955

Automobile negligence action involving personal injury. The Court of Common Pleas, Erie County, No. 275, November Term 1953, Samuel Y. Rossiter, J., granted motion for new trial on the ground of inadequacy of the verdict and an appeal was taken. The Supreme Court, No. 18, March Term, 1955, Allen M Stearne, J., held that the trial court's grant of a new trial on the ground of inadequacy of a $4,500 award to a minor plaintiff for injuries which included the loss of sight of his left eye, was not a palpable abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

Frank B. Quinn, Bernard F. Quinn, Quinn, Leemhuis, Plate & Dwyer, Erie, for appellant.

John A. Blackmore, John M. Wolford, Erie, for appellee.

Before STERN, C. J., and STEARNE, JONES, BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO and ARNOLD, JJ.

ALLEN M. STEARNE, Justice.

The appeal is from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County granting plaintiff's motion for a new trial because of the inadequacy of the verdict.

Plaintiff, a minor of three years of age, was a guest passenger in his father's motor vehicle. In a collision between the father's auto truck and defendant's automobile, plaintiff was severely injured. Among many injuries he lost the sight of his left eye. The amount of the parent's verdict was $2,127.62 and for the minor-plaintiff $4,500. In granting the minor-plaintiff's motion for new trial, the trial Judge characterized the verdict as ‘ miserly’ and ‘ patently insufficient’ . He said:

‘ The applicable measure of damages * * * would permit the recovery for the loss of his eye, the pain and suffering incidental thereto, his permanent disfigurement by reason thereof and also his diminished earning power after he attains his majority by reason of the necessity of his engaging in such work as will not produce impairment of the good eye in the future and engaging in such occupations as will not present a hazard to that good eye. There would also be recovery for his facial injuries, the pain and suffering incidental thereto and the permanent disfigurement caused thereby. * * *'

A discussion of the facts of the accident is unnecessary. The verdict of the jury fixed sole liability upon the defendant and exonerated the minor's father from liability. The minor-plaintiff, being a guest passenger, eliminates...