Jackson v. Roddy

• Decision Date: 21 January 1932
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 45.
• Parties: JACKSON v. RODDY.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

139 So. 354

224 Ala. 132

JACKSON v. RODDY.

6 Div. 45.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 21, 1932

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. Russell McElroy Judge.

Action for damages for personal injuries by Nora Roddy against L. D Jackson. From a judgment granting plaintiff's motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

C. J Griffith and David J. Davis, both of Birmingham, for appellant.

R. J McClure and Fort, Beddow & Ray, all of Birmingham, for appellee.

GARDNER J.

Plaintiff was a passenger guest of defendant in his automobile en route to Gadsden from Birmingham, Ala., when on the Gadsden highway, between Springville and Ashville, the car overturned, resulting in injuries to plaintiff, to recover damages for which she instituted this suit, and recovered a judgment for one cent. Her motion for a new trial was granted by the trial judge upon the ground of the inadequacy of the amount awarded, and, from the judgment sustaining said motion, defendant appeals.

Plaintiff is fifty-four years of age. As a result of the accident, she remained in a hospital six weeks and confined to her bed at home eight weeks after leaving the hospital, and attended by "special nurses day and night for five weeks." There was a complete fracture of the pelvis on both sides, her wrist was broken, contusions and abrasions about the body, particularly the right side of her back and hip, lacerated wound of the scalp and left leg, and suffered much from nervous shock. She insisted in her testimony that the broken wrist, which she exhibited to the jury, was now deformed and the use of it greatly depreciated for lack of ability to grasp with the fingers.

That the question of negligent operation of the car was one for the jury's determination is not controverted. It is the settled rule that, in reviewing the action of the court in granting a new trial, the appellate courts indulge the same presumption in favor of the ruling as when the motion is denied, and will not disturb the same unless it appears that the great weight of the evidence plainly and palpably supported the verdict. Conner v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co., 221 Ala. 358, 128 So. 789; Bynum v. So. Bldg. & Loan Ass'n (Ala. Sup.) 137 So. 21.

The damages proven are in a large measure discretionary with the jury, and the rule is not to reverse on account thereof, unless the amount is so excessive or inadequate as to indicate prejudice, passion, partiality, corruption, or some other controlling sentiment. Whitman's Fifth Ave. Garage v. Ricks, 211 Ala. 527, 101 So. 53. But, as stated by this court in Veitch v. So. Ry. Co., 220 Ala. 436, 126 So. 845, this does not necessarily mean that it must appear there was corruption or indeed any conscious violation of duty on the jury's part. And, in Alabama Great So. Ry. Co. v. Randle, 215 Ala. 535, 112 So. 112 So. 112, 113, speaking of the approved rule of discretion as to damages of this nature, the court said: "This rule does not deny that there may be cases, even of injuries not measurable by any legal standard, where the proven injuries are so severe and extensive that a court would be fully justified in setting aside a grossly inadequate verdict; that is, one which fails to give substantial compensation for substantial injuries."

The trial judge was and heard the witnesses, and evidently concluded...