Mclendon v. Floyd

• Decision Date: 23 February 1939
• Docket Number: No. 27249.,27249.
• Citation: 1 S.E.2d 466
• Parties: McLENDON. v. FLOYD.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

1 S.E.2d 466

McLENDON.

v.FLOYD.

No. 27249.

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 1.

Feb. 23, 1939.

Syllabus by the Court.

The verdict for $300 in favor of the plaintiff was so inadequate as to justify the inference of gross mistake or undue bias by the jury, and the court erred in overruling the plaintiff's motion for a new trial.

Error from Superior Court, Floyd County; C. H. Porter, Judge.

Action for injury by F. W. McLendon against Harry Floyd. To review an adverse judgment, plaintiff brings error.

Reversed.

Helen Douglas Mankin, of Atlanta, and Wright & Covington, of Rome, for plaintiff in error.

Maddox & Griffin, of Rome, for defendant in error.

BROYLES, Chief Judge.

"Damages are given as compensation for the injury sustained." Code, § 20-1402. Therefore, in an action to recover damages for personal injuries, where the evidence, although in sharp conflict, authorized the finding of the jury establishing the liability of the defendant, and the undisputed evidence showed actual damages to the plaintiff resulting from the injuries sustained, in the loss of her wages, as a nurse, for four months, amounting to $400, and in doctor's and hospital bills and medical expenses amounting to $300, and also severe pain and suffering, a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $300 was grossly inadequate and contrary to law and the evidence, and the refusal to grant the plaintiff a new trial was error. See, in this connection, Travers v. Macon Ry. etc, Co, 19 Ga.App. 15, 90 S.E. 732; Anglin v. City of Columbus, 128 Ga. 469, 57 S.E. 780; Potter v. Swindle, 77 Ga. 419, 3 S.E. 94; Slaughter v. Atlanta, etc, Co, 48 Ga.App. 327, 172 S.E. 723. This is true, although the trial now under review was the second trial of the case, and on the first trial a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $250 was returned which, on a motion for new trial, was set aside by the court as being inadequate. If the first verdict for $250 was so inadequate as to indicate prejudice and bias by the jury, then, under the evidence, the present verdict for $300 is likewise grossly inadequate for the same rea-son, and the error committed by a previous jury is no excuse, legal or moral, for a similar error by the jury on the second trial. "The question of the amount of the verdict is ordinarily for the court below, and [but?] where a grossly excessive [or a grossly inadequate] amount is returned, the trial court should never allow it to stand, no matter how many new trials it may be obliged to grant."...