Murphy v. Town of Cleveland

• Decision Date: 15 December 1913
• Citation: 63 So. 572,106 Miss. 269
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: MRS. J. T. MURPHY v. TOWN OF CLEVELAND

63 So. 572

106 Miss. 269

MRS. J. T. MURPHY v. TOWN OF CLEVELAND

Supreme Court of Mississippi

December 15, 1913

October, 1913

APPEAL from the circuit court of Bolivar county, HON. SAM C. COOK Judge.

Suit by Mrs. J. T. Murphy against the town of Cleveland. From an insufficient judgment for plaintiff, she appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Charles Scott and Sykes & Somerville, for appellant.

Our only assignment of error in this case is that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the law and the testimony, in that it was entirely inadequate. The uncontradicted testimony in the case of Mrs. Murphy and of Dr. McLean is to the effect that the dislocation to her shoulder was a serious, permanent injury, from which she can never recover. The uncontradicted testimony further shows that Mrs. Murphy suffered a great deal of physical pain, and was laid up for several days with her arm at the time of the injury, and later on spent a week in a hospital in Memphis on account of the shoulder. The uncontradicted testimony in the case further shows that she expended quite an amount of money for doctor's bills and medicines on account of this arm. In fact, we believe the amount spent on doctor's bills and medicine would equal the amount of her recovery in this case. By their verdict the jury have said that Mrs. Murphy was entitled to recover compensatory damages, yet they only gave her for such damages an amount which would just about pay her doctor's bills. There is not one particle of testimony introduced here for the defense that Mrs. Murphy's injuries were not both painful, serious and permanent, and, since this is true, we submit that the court will not allow any such verdict as this to stand. This case is very much like the case of Moseley v. Jamison, 68 Miss. 336. In that case Chief Justice WOODS laid down the true rule as follows, viz., "It may be conceded that where there is no standard for measuring damages, and no certain rule can be prescribed for the guidance of the jury, the court should not ordinarily grant a new trial, although the damages awarded by the jury may appear to be manifestly too small. In such case of incertitude in the measure of damages, the matter must be left to the discretion of the jury; nor should its verdict be disturbed on its finding as to the proper amount to be awarded, except in the cases where it has been plainly produced by prejudice or passion or other improper motive. "

But conceding all this, a new trial must be granted in actions ex delicto where the jury has responded only in part to the demand made upon it by the law and the evidence. The plaintiff in such action seeks to establish his right to a recovery for injuries done by the defendant, and to recover adequate compensation for the wrongs. An appeal to the courts of the country, which is met by a verdict declaring that the plaintiff's right to a recovery is clear, but declining to give adequate compensatory damages, has certainly not met that response which justice requires. The aggrieved suitor has asked for, and shown that he is entitled to receive bread, but has been given a stone. He has made out his right to recover for the wrong done him, and he has a right to expect and demand adequate compensatory damages, if nothing more. He has furnished the jury with a certain standard for estimating his damages, and the jury is not to be permitted wantonly and defiantly to disregard this certain standard in arriving at its conclusion. The right to adequate compensation is as fixed as the right to a recovery itself. Hasie v. Railroad Company, 79 Miss. 581; Hill v. R R. Co., 79 Miss. 587.

Montgomery & Montgomery, for appellee.

The only ground on which it is sought to have the judgment of the circuit court set aside and a new trial granted in this case is that the verdict of the jury was not adequate damages for the injury complained of by the appellant here and plaintiff in the court below. The verdict in this case was for the sum of one hundred dollars and the plaintiff in the court below had instituted her suit asking for the sum of eight thousand dollars for personal injuries sustained by her because of a defective condition in one of the sidewalks in the town of Cleveland. The case was tried before the jury and all the evidence on both sides, together with the instructions of the court, was presented to the jury and after considering everything, the jury found for the plaintiff and assessed her damages at one hundred dollars.

The rule as to the setting aside of verdicts in cases where there is complaint that the verdict of the jury was excessive has been well settled in this state in many different instances. The rule is that the courts will not disturb the verdict upon the ground of excessive damages unless the verdict be so flagrant and improper as to show that the jury were influenced by passion, prejudice, partiality or corruption and unless the party complaining can show that this is true, the court will not disturb the finding of the jury. Railroad Co. v. Hurst, 36 Miss. 660, 74 Am. Dec. 785; Railroad Co. v. Whitfield, 44 Miss. 466, 7 Am. Rep. 699; Railroad Co. v. Caruth, 51 Miss. 77.

The rule as to whether the court will set aside a verdict of the jury because the verdict is complained of as inadequate, is the same as the rule established in the case of award of excessive damages. Hill v. A. & V. Railway Co., 79 Miss. 587.

In order for the appellant to have the verdict in this case set aside and a new trial granted, she must be able to show that verdict is so inadequate as to show that the jury was influenced by passion, prejudice, partiality or corruption.

The case of Hill v. A. & V. R. R. Co., 79 Miss. 587, is a case in which Hill, the plaintiff, recovered a verdict from the Railroad Company for one hundred dollars for personal injuries...