Garcia v. City of Tucson, 2
| Decision Date | 05 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 399 P.2d 704,1 Ariz.App. 83 |
| Parties | Daniel CARCIA, by Mary Garcia, his Guardian ad Litem, Appellant, v. CITY OF TUCSON, Appellee. 13. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
W. Edward Morgan, Tucson, for appellant.
Chandler, Tullar, Udall & Richmond, Tucson, for appellee.
The appellant, Mary Garcia, acting as guardian ad Litem for her minor son, Daniel Garcia, filed a complaint against the City of Tucson to recover for injuries sustained by her son as a result of the alleged negligence of city employees. While playing in Oury Park, a city park, Daniel Garcia was injured when a heavy iron gate in the park fell on him.
At the close of the plaintiff's case, the City of Tucson, invoking the doctrine of governmental immunity, made a motion for a directed verdict which was denied. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $10,000 and plaintiff's costs, and judgment was entered thereon. Upon the defendant's motion, the court ordered that the verdict be set aside and that the defendant's motion for a directed verdict, made at the close of the plaintiff's case, be granted. Plaintiff's motion for a new trial as to the issue of damages was subsequently denied.
The plaintiff ascribes to the trial court the following errors:
'I The directed verdict in favor of the City of Tucson on the basis of governmental immunity, was error because the Superior Court should have ruled that the city is liable for its torts in the operation and maintenance of the city park and or in the operation and maintenance of public streets and public access ways.
'II The trial court abused its discretion in not granting the plaintiff's motion for additur or in the alternative a new trial as to the issues of damages.'
While this case was pending the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona in Stone v. Arizona Highway Commission, 93 Ariz. 384, 381 P.2d (1963), discarded the doctrine of governmental immunity. The court said:
'The substantive defense of governmental immunity is now abolished not only for the instant case, but for all other pending cases * * *.' (Emphasis supplied.)
It follows that the order of the trial court granting a directed verdict in favor of the City of Tucson on the basis of governmental immunity must be reversed.
Appellant contends that the trial court should have granted an additur or a new trial on the issue of damages. In support thereof, counsel urges this court to consider expenditures incurred by an injured party in litigation of his claim. This appeal must be determined solely on the evidence produced in the court below and shown by the record. 3 Am.Jur. Appeal and Error § 835, p. 377; Moosher v. Young, 50 Ariz. 359, 72 P.2d 682 (1937). The adequacy of a jury's award is a matter peculiarly within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Watson
...by the trial court in granting or denying a new trial. Caldwell v. Tremper, 90 Ariz. 241, 367 P.2d 266 (1962); Garcia v. City of Tucson, 1 Ariz.App. 83, 399 P.2d 704 (1965). We are dealing with an intangible as to which there can be no unanimity of opinion. At first blush, and now on reflec......
-
Ranburger v. Southern Pacific Transp. Co.
...v. Budreau, 134 Ariz. 539, 658 P.2d 192 (App.1982); Arnold v. Knettle, 10 Ariz.App. 509, 460 P.2d 45 (1969); Garcia v. City of Tucson, 1 Ariz.App. 83, 399 P.2d 704 (1965). We reverse the award of punitive damages because the jury was not properly instructed concerning the plaintiff's burden......
-
Hing v. Youtsey
...has it been shown that the jury acted by passion, partiality, prejudice or corruption. As this court stated in Garcia v. City of Tucson, 1 Ariz.App. 83, 399 P.2d 704 (1965): 'The adequacy of a jury's award is a matter peculiarly within the discretion of the trial court, and will not be dist......
-
Creamer v. Troiano
...testify, undercover investigators, etc. In its early days, the Court of Appeals closely followed our decisions. See Garcia v. Tucson, 1 Ariz.App. 83, 399 P.2d 704 (1965). Even as late as 1969, in Hardy v. So. Pac. Empl. Ass'n, 10 Ariz.App. 464, 459 P.2d 743 (1969), Division Two quite correc......