Feldstein v. Harrington
| Citation | 8 Wis.2d 569,99 N.W.2d 694 |
| Parties | Jacob FELDSTEIN, Appellant, v. Francis C. HARRINGTON et al., Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 01 December 1959 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
Reino A. Perala, Superior, Friedman & Friedman, Duluth, Minn., for appellant.
Hughes, Anderson, Davis & Walker, Superior, for respondents.
This action is before this court a second time. Feldstein v. Harrington, supra. That action was tried to a court and jury. The only issue for jury determination was the issue of damages. The only question submitted to the jury in the former case was:
'At what sum do you assess the damages of the plaintiff, Jacob Feldstein, for personal injuries, including pain and suffering, which you find were actually sustained by him as a result of the accident in question?'
The jury returned an answer of $700 to such question. This court granted a new trial because of erroneous rulings on admissibility of evidence and did not discuss the inadequacy of damages, although this court stated it would not disturb the jury's findings as to damages if that were the sole issue.
In the present action the sole issue was as to damages, liability being admitted, and the trial court submitted the following questions:
'What sum will fairly compensate the plaintiff, Jacob Feldstein, as a natural consequence of the collision
The jury's answers to these questions were as to (A) none, and (B) $700.
The medical expenses stipulated and testified to were as follows: St. Luke's Hospital, $247.50; Dr. J. R. McNutt, for X-rays, $62.50; Dr. Mendeloff, $255, total $565. There was testimony that the plaintiff also expended the sum of $85.80 per year for hot baths at $1.65 each. There is also testimony in the record that plaintiff had taken hot baths regularly prior to the accident, which is the subject matter of this suit.
No manipulation of the items of special damages allowed under subd. (b) of the special verdict results in the figure of the jury's award in the amount of $700 to the plaintiff for medical and hospital expenses, which resulted as a natural consequence of the negligence of the defendant. In subd. (a) of the same question, the jury failed to award any amount for personal injuries. The verdict, therefore, is inconsistent. The inconsistency of the answers to subd. (a) and (b) in the special verdict creates a perverse verdict and requires the granting of a new trial. Lines v. City of Milwaukee, 1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cozine v. Hawaiian Catamaran, Limited
...317-318, 41 N.E.2d 433, 435-436, and Feldstein v. Harrington, 4 Wis.2d 380, 390-391, 90 N.W.2d 566, 572, rev'd on other grounds, 8 Wis.2d 569, 99 N.W.2d 694. However, the record does not support this contention. Dr. Silver testified that he based his opinion in part on the out-of-court stat......
-
Gould v. Mans
...upon which the courts hold such a verdict inadequate and invalid vary. In some cases it is said to be inconsistent, Feldstein v. Harrington, 8 Wis.2d 569, 99 N.W.2d 694, Shewry v. Heuer, 255 Iowa 147, 121 N.W.2d 529, and Burkett v. Moran, Okl., 410 P.2d 876. In others the great weight of ev......
-
Dickman v. Schaeffer
...questions. The cases cited by Wood as examples of perverse verdicts do not govern the facts of this case. See Feldstein v. Harrington, 1959, 8 Wis.2d 569, 99 N.W.2d 694 (defendant liability admitted); Lines v. City of Milwaukee, 1911, 147 Wis. 546, 133 N.W. 592 (inadequate damages on the ev......
-
Hill v. Green Bay Chrysler
...and medical expense questions are inconsistent and render the damages part of the verdict perverse. See Feldstein v. Harrington, 8 Wis.2d 569, 571, 99 N.W.2d 694, 696 (1959). Where the answer to one special verdict question is perverse, the whole verdict should be set aside unless the trial......