Fusaro v. Naccarato

• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: ROBERTS
• Citation: Fusaro v. Naccarato, 103 R.I. 324, 237 A.2d 545 (R.I. 1968)
• Decision Date: 23 January 1968
• Docket Number: Nos. 80-A,s. 80-A
• Parties: Anna FUSARO v. Bettina NACCARATO. Angelo FUSARO v. Bettina NACCARATO. ppeal, 80-Appeal-1.

Page 545

237 A.2d 545

103 R.I. 324

Anna FUSARO v. Bettina NACCARATO.

Angelo FUSARO v. Bettina NACCARATO.

Nos. 80-Appeal, 80-Appeal-1.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

Jan. 23, 1968.

[103 R.I. 327] Cappuccio & Cappuccio, Louis B. Cappuccio, Frank S. Cappuccio, Westerly, for plaintiffs.

John G. Carroll, Providence, for defendant.

OPINION

ROBERTS, Chief Justice.

These are two cases of trespass on the case for negligence brought to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained as a result of a collision between two motor vehicles, in one of which the plaintiffs, man and wife, were riding as passengers, and the other owned by the defendant. The cases were tried by a justice of the superior court sitting without a jury and resulted in a decision for the plaintiff in each case. Damages were awarded to the plaintiff Anna Fusaro in the amount of $7,300 and to the plaintiff Angelo Fusaro in the amount of $871.20. Judgment entered therefor in each case. The cases are now in this court on the defendant's appeal therefrom solely on the ground that the damages awarded in each case were grossly excessive.

The defendant, in arguing in this court that the damages awarded were grossly excessive, contends that the trial justice rested his conclusion as to the amount of damages to be awarded on a misconception of the evidence relating to that issue. It is, of course, well settled that an award of damages must rest on legally competent evidence establishing the nature and extent thereof. Such an award may not properly be the result of speculation or conjecture. Jackson v. Choquette & Co., 78 R.I. 164, 80 A.2d 172. The damages awarded in this case, in our opinion, are supported by competent evidence, and the amounts were not grossly excessive.

In the first place, defendant argues that damages in the amount of $2,300 for Anna Fusaro's loss of wages is unsupported by any competent evidence. The record discloses, however, upon examination, that there is medical testimony that this plaintiff was unable to perform the duties of her employment for a period of forty-three weeks. When the amount of lost wages is computed on the basis of this time period multiplied by her weekly wage, it becomes obvious that $2,300 was a correct award. There being evidence proving this, it was the duty of the trial justice to make such an award. Rusoff v. O'Brien, 99 R.I. 153, 206 A.2d 209.

The defendant argues also that the award of $5,000 for pain and suffering was grossly excessive. We have repeatedly held that there is no formula to which we adhere for the computation of the damages to be awarded for pain and suffering. Tilley v. Mather, ...