Dunn v. Butler
| Decision Date | 01 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 43385,43385 |
| Citation | 172 So.2d 430,252 Miss. 40 |
| Parties | David DUNN v. James BUTLER, Sr. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
J. B. Mitchell, Smith & Smith, Corinth, for appellant.
Stovall & Price, Corinth, for appellee.
David Dunn, plaintiff below and appellant here, sued James Butler, Sr., defendant below and appellee here, for personal injuries he sustained, and medical bills incurred in the treatment of injuries sustained by him and his minor children, when appellee ran his automobile against them. Appellant appealed from a judgment in his favor in a sum which he contends is inadequate. The only question justifying consideration is the contention that the verdict is so inadequate that it evinces bias and prejudice on the part of the jury.
Appellant and his two daughters, ages nine and seven, were walking along a street and when he saw appellee's automobile approaching, he grabbed his children and ran into the ditch but was run down by appellee's vehicle. Appellee admitted that he was negligent and testified that he drank a half pint of 90-proof moonshine whiskey shortly before the accident and did not remember anything about it.
The jury returned the following verdict:
Appellant was struck on his back and hips. The physician who treated him described his injuries as large abrasions over his back and hips with hematoma, bluish discolorations, and swelling. His lower back, including the left hip, was involved but not as much as the right. He was in pain when admitted to the hospital, where he remained four days. The physician said the injury to his back was pretty severe with bleeding and swelling, although no bones were broken. Treatment consisted of supportive treatment and medicine to keep him easy. Diagnosis was lumbar sacral sprain with some damage to the sciatic nerve. The physician was of the opinion that appellant's back will be weakened but he could not say how much damage was done in that respect; that appellant would not be able to life as he did before the accident, and that 'he will have some weakness in his back as to doing the heavy work he was doing previously.'
Appellant testified that he suffered a great deal and was not able to do the lifting he had formerly done and had to have help when lifting objects he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tippit v. Hunter
...Co., 248 Miss. 416, 159 So.2d 634 (1964); Ladner v. Merchants Bank & Trust Co., 251 Miss. 804, 171 So.2d 503 (1965); Dunn v. Butler, 252 Miss. 40, 172 So.2d 430 (1965). Since this case must be reversed, the next question to be determined is whether or not this case should be reversed for a ......
-
Edwards By and Through Edwards v. Patrick By and Through Patrick, 55541
...and not responsive to the proof, a new trial on damages is appropriate. Powers v. Malley, 302 So.2d 262 (Miss.1974). In Dunn v. Butler, 252 Miss. 40, 172 So.2d 430 (1965), we In order to insure the preservation, integrity and vitality of the right to trial by jury, this Court has throughout......
-
Johnson v. Wilkinson, 43756
...partially disabled; and in that case the Court made the same statement as above quoted from the Whatley case. In Dunn v. Butler, 172 So.2d 430 (Miss.1965), where the jury had returned a verdict for $1,385.00, $885.00 of which was for medical bills already incurred, and $500.00 for various o......