Ocana v. Ray Consol. Copper Co.
| Decision Date | 26 January 1921 |
| Docket Number | Civil 1807 |
| Citation | 194 P. 959,22 Ariz. 112 |
| Parties | BLAS OCANA, Appellant, v. RAY CONSOLIDATED COPPER COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellee |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. F. H. Lyman, Judge. Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.
Messrs Cox, Moore & Gerard, for Appellant.
Messrs Chalmers, Stahl, Fennemore & Longan, for Appellee.
This action was brought by the plaintiff, under the Employers' Liability Law (Civ. Code 1913, pars. 3153-3179), to recover damages from the defendant for personal injuries received by the plaintiff, while working as a timberman for the defendant in the defendant's mine. The defendant interposed the plea that the plaintiff's own negligence was the cause of his injuries. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of one dollar. Plaintiff made a motion for a new trial upon the ground of inadequacy of damages, and contended that, if plaintiff were entitled to recover at all it was more than a nominal amount, and hence the verdict ought not to stand. The motion was denied, and judgment was ordered to be entered upon the verdict, which was so done and the plaintiff appeals from both the judgment and the order denying the motion for a new trial.
The result of the trial in this case cannot be explained on any ground that will harmonize it with a sense of justice. The jury in finding a verdict for the plaintiff must have found that the plaintiff was free from negligence and that he was entitled to recover such damages as he had sustained. Having reached the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to recover, the jury should have found a verdict sufficient to compensate him for his injuries. If the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, the verdict should have been for the defendant. It will not do to say that the jury must have been convinced that the plaintiff had no cause of action and that in a spirit of liberality they found the verdict for the trifling sum of one dollar in order to save the plaintiff from the cost of litigation. This would be to place the jury distinctly in the wrong and do an injustice to the defendant. Neither can it be said that the verdict may be regarded as practically and in effect a verdict for the defendant. The verdict imports a verity as to the party in whose favor it runs.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff which we are required to do, the following facts are established: The accident occurred on March 30, 1919. The plaintiff was thirty-eight years of age and was well and sound in limb before the accident. The main injury he received was that the semilunar or interarticular fiber cartilage of the left knee was loosened or dislocated as the result of a fall from a platform, which occurred to the plaintiff, while he was endeavoring to lift a piece of heavy timber to a position above his head; that in consequence of the injury he was incapacitated to work for a period of about seventy days, a greater part of which time he was under treatment by physicians in the employment of the defendant that he suffered considerable pain; and that when the accident occurred he was earning $4.50 per day. It is obvious that the assessment of damages was inadequate. We cannot conscientiously permit the verdict to stand. It is no compensation whatever for the injuries the plaintiff has sustained. The plaintiff was certainly entitled to recover for the time lost by him as the result of the accident, to say nothing of compensation for the injury, pain, inconvenience, and suffering involved in the occurrence. The court should and always will be careful not to usurp the functions of a jury, neither will the court be prompt to overrule the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Myers v. Rollette
...Prior to the decision in Thompson, the Arizona Supreme Court considered the Employers' Liability Law and in Ocana v. Ray Consolidated Copper Company, 22 Ariz. 112, 194 P. 959 (1921), held that pain and suffering are a proper element for consideration in awarding damages. The matter of pain ......
-
Meyer v. Ricklick
...Dorian v. Benj. E. Boone, Inc., 152 Wash. 681, 279 P. 107." (43 Ariz. at 155, 29 P.2d at 730.) We note that Ocana v. Ray Consolidated Copper Co., 22 Ariz. 112, at 114, 194 P. 959, contains some misleading language regarding the viewing of the evidence by the appellate court. 1 Recent decisi......
-
Del Ponte v. Giannessi
...petition for a new trial on the ground that the damages awarded were clearly inadequate. This case is cited in Ocana v. Ray Consol. Copper Co., 22 Ariz. 112, 194 P. 959, as being in a long line of decisions upholding the conclusion of the court granting plaintiff a new trial on the ground o......
-
Zadro v. Snyder
...than the suggestion that the jury sympathized with defendant. This is clearly different than the case of Ocana v. Ray Consolidated Copper Co., 22 Ariz. 112, 194 P. 959 (1921), where the jury found liability but awarded only one dollar. It is always possible here that the jury, despite the u......