Gibson v. A.T. Wineman & Sons

• Decision Date: 01 February 1926
• Docket Number: 25393
• Citation: 141 Miss. 573,106 So. 826
• Parties: GIBSON v. A. T. WINEMAN & SON. [*]
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

106 So. 826

141 Miss. 573

GIBSON v. A. T. WINEMAN & SON. ^[*]

No. 25393

Supreme Court of Mississippi

February 1, 1926

Division A

1. TRIAL. All instructions must be considered together.

All the instructions given must be considered together, one as limiting, modifying, or supplementing others.

2 DEATH. Five hundred dollars for death of husband held inadequate. Verdict for five hundred dollars to widow for death of husband, an able-bodied man, thirty-seven years of age and earning two dollars per day at time of receiving injury resulting in his death, held so grossly inadequate as to evince bias, passion, or prejudice on part of jury particularly since there was no element of contributory negligence involved to reduce damages.

HON. S F. DAVIS, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Washington county, HON. S. F. DAVIS, Judge.

Suit by Ida Gibson against R. P. Wineman and another, a partnership doing business under the firm name of A. T. Wineman & Sons. From a judgment for plaintiff, she appeals on the ground of insufficient damages, and defendants cross-appeal. Affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded, with directions.

Affirmed in part, and reversed in part.

Wasson, Nelson & Wasson, for appellant.

We do not comprehend upon what theory the jury before whom this cause was tried considered that five hundred dollars was an adequate compensation to this appellant for the established negligence of appellees in causing the death of her husband, and this in view of the instructions guiding the jury in an ascertainment of damages by the only means and standards known to the law.

Ida Gibson, a necessitous, friendless, ignorant, respectable negro woman is deprived of her home and husband, and the source of her support and maintenance. Aaron Gibson, at the time of his death, was thirty-seven years of age; he was earning and receiving from the appellees a wage of two dollars per day. He was a dutiful husband and a good man, working steadily and endeavoring to provide for his wife as best he could within his limited sphere of ability and usefulness. But we see him transformed, in the twinkling of an eye, from a stalwart, able-bodied man engaged in his work for the appellees, to a helpless, broken mass of dying humanity, subjected to excruciating physical pain and mental anguish brought about by the knowledge of the presence of death.

Citation of authorities is deemed wholly unnecessary to support the instruction given by the court for the plaintiff in which the jury was told that Ida Gibson, the appellant, is entitled at their hands to recover front the appellees such compensation as would have been awarded to Aaron Gibson, had he lived, for the physical pain and mental anguish which he suffered by reason of appellees' negligence. Did the jury accord due consideration to this vital element of damages? We submit that they did not. From the American Experience Table of Mortality, Aaron Gibson's life expectancy was thirty and thirty-five hundredths years. The jury was fully instructed as to the method for ascertaining the net cash value of the life expectancy of the deceased in this instance. The table was not introduced in evidence on the trial of this cause, not was it necessary to do so for the purposes of this appeal, in order that this court may determine whether or not the amount awarded to appellant as damages is inadequate. 20 Amer. & Eng. Encyc. Law (2 Ed.), page 886; 17 C. J., sec. 331, page 1036.

Viewing the case in its entirety, can it be said that justice has been done? Can it be said that an impartial jury weighing the value of the testimony and the elements of damage accruing to this appellant, arrived at the amount of damages awarded by the verdict without any extraneous inducement whatever? That the jury was wholly unbiased and without prejudice in making the award, and that five hundred dollars is an adequate compensation for the terrible pain and suffering borne by the deceased, and the staggering loss to this appellant caused by the gross negligence of the appellees? Guided by the rules of law, the jury could not logically or conscientiously, as a whole, have considered the amount of damages adequate in this instance.

Watkins, Watkins & Eager, for appellees.

A jury's finding upon certain facts should stand, if those facts support their finding and they are free from prejudice in the premises. The plight of Ida Gibson is indeed pitiful, but her rights have not necessarily been undertrodden and abused because a jury of twelve good and lawful men were not moved to pity, but instead, gave her what she deserved under the facts of the case, after careful deliberation. No doubt Aaron Gibson did suffer before his death, but who can say better than an unprejudiced jury of twelve good men how much and how intensely he suffered? Because a man suffers to an unknown degree, is that reason why he should be considered as suffering in a certain enormouos pecuniary amount? Perhaps Aaron Gibson suffered no more than a person with an ordinary headache, who knows? The jury certainly had as much reason to believe his suffering was slight as they would have had to believe that it was in some terrible and inconceivable degree.

Counsel contend that the jury must have ignored the life expectancy of Aaron Gibson, and, in the ardor of supporting this contention, seem to have lost sight of the fact that the economic condition of the deceased was of a very low order, and that he could never have even contemplated on turning his future time into many more dollars than were given to his wife by Mr. Otto Wineman and the jury that tried this case in the lower court. The determination of the amount of damage arising from the alleged wrongful death of a person must, of necessity, be largely speculation. The jury in all such cases is given wide latitude and allowed to use much discretion in making up the verdict. City of Vicksburg v. McLain, 67 Miss. 4; Lane v. United Electric L. & W. Co., 90, Conn. 35, L. R. A. 1916 C. 808; Grafton v. Delano, 154 N.W. 1009; Wabash v. Carver, 129 Ind. 552, 13 L. R. A. 851, 29 N.E. 25. See, also, Re California Nac. & Improv. Co., 110 F. 670; Southern P. Co. v. Lafferty, 6 C. C. A. 474, 15 U. S. App. 193, 57 F. 536; Pittsburg C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Burton, 37 N.E. 150; Brikett v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 18 N.E. 108; Wabash R. Co. v. McDaniels, 107 N.E. 291.

OPINION

COOK, J.

Ida Gibson, the widow...