Pan American Petroleum Corporation v. Pate
| Decision Date | 07 December 1931 |
| Docket Number | 29470 |
| Citation | 162 Miss. 638,138 So. 349 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | PAN AMERICAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION et al. v. PATE |
1 DAMAGES.
Instruction held not erroneous as permitting damages for mental suffering after physical suffering ceased.
2. APPEAL AND ERROR.
Supreme court is reluctant to reverse for arguments by attorney where trial judge refused new trial on account thereof.
3. APPEAL AND ERROR.
Verdict will not be reversed because some of jurors had not paid taxes on 1st of February (Constitution 1890, section 264).
4. APPEAL AND ERROR.
Supreme court will not reverse for trial court's refusal of new trial on ground one of attorneys consulted with bankers as to selection of jury, where bankers were not shown to have interest in res.
5 TRIAL.
Law does not forbid attorney from consulting friends in passing on jurors, and nothing prohibits bankers or others from attending trials and advising with attorneys respecting jurors' qualifications.
6 DAMAGES.
Twenty thousand dollars to child for injuries by explosion and severe burns, permanently affecting child's physical and mental condition, held not excessive.
7 DAMAGES.
In a suit for personal injuries, where liability had been established in a former opinion of the court and where the injury caused physical and mental suffering to the person injured, it is not error for the court to charge the jury that it is their duty under the law to bring in a verdict against the defendants for such sum as will from a preponderance of the evidence fully compensate the plaintiff for his injuries caused by explosion, including all physical and mental pain and suffering endured up to the present time and which he may reasonably be expected to suffer in the future as a proximate result of said injuries, and also for any and all loss of earning capacity which he may be reasonably expected to sustain on account of any physical or mental impairment during his life and after majority; where the proof tends to show that there was a continuance of physical suffering to the time of the trial, the probability is of a continuance thereof.
8. APPEAL AND ERROR.
This court is reluctant to reverse a case because of arguments made by attorneys in the cause, where the trial judge, who hears the complete argument, refuses a new trial on account thereof. Argument in this case examined and held insufficient to reverse the judgment.
9. APPEAL AND ERROR.
The court will not reverse a verdict rendered by a jury merely because some of the jurors had not paid their taxes on or by the 1st of February, as, under section 264 of the Constitution, it is provided that the failure of a juror to possess the qualifications named shall not vitiate any verdict or indictment.
10. APPEAL AND ERROR.
This court will not reverse a trial court for its refusal to grant a new trial on the ground that one of the attorneys consulted with bankers as to the selection of the jury, where it is not shown that the bank officers were interested in the res of the suit. There is nothing in the law that forbids an attorney from consulting his friends in passing upon jurors, and nothing to prohibit bankers, as well as others, from attending public trials and advising with attorneys as to qualifications of jurors.
11. DAMAGES.
A verdict for twenty thousand dollars to a child for injuries occasioned by explosion and severe burns, which permanently affected his physical and mental condition and probably rendered him incapable of being developed into a normal man, and with probability that he would never have any earning ability or capacity and would probably have to be attended by an attendant throughout life to prevent him injuring himself by reason of inability to control his muscular movements under excitement or emotion, will not be held to be so excessive as to indicate passion and prejudice.
HON. THOS. H. JOHNSTON, Judge.
APPEAL from circuit court of Prentiss county HON. THOS. H. JOHNSTON, Judge.
Action by Dexter Pate against the Pan-American Petroleum Corporation, and others. From an adverse judgment, defendants appeal. Affirmed.
See, also, 157 Miss. 822, 126 So. 480; 128 So. 870.
Affirmed.
Wells, Jones, Wells & Lipscomb, of Jackson, Lloyd J. Cobb, of New Orleans, La., Friday & Windham, of Booneville, and E. C. Sharp, of fackson, for appellant.
The instruction given appellee charges the jury that it is their sworn duty to award the appellee damages for "any and all physical and mental pain and suffering endured up to the present time, or which he may reasonably be expected to suffer in the future as a proximate result of said injuries." This instruction does not inform the jury, as it should have, that they could award appellee damages for mental pain so long as, and only so long as, such mental pain and suffering should "be accompanied with and be a part of the physical suffering," and that, "whenever the latter ceases to he an element of damage, so does the former."
Bonelli v. Branciere, 127 Miss. 556, 90 So. 245.
No action lies for the recovery of damages for mere mental suffering disconnected from physical injury and not the result of the wilful wrong of the defendant.
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Rogers, 68 Miss. 748, 9 So. 823, 13 L. R. A. 859, 24 Am. St. Rep. 300; Bonelli v. Branciere, 127 Miss. 556, 90 So. 245; Grenada Bank v. Lester, 89 So. 2; So. Pac. Co. v. Hetzer, 135 F. 272, 68 C. C. A. 216, 1, L. R. A. (N. S.) 288; J. J. Newman Lumber Company v. Norris, 130 Miss. 751, 94 So. 881; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ragsdale, 111 Miss. 550, 71 So. 818; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Koonce, 112 Miss. 173, 72 So. 893; Dorroh v. Ill. Cent. R. R. Co., 65 Miss. 14, 3 So. 36, 36, Am. St. Rep. 629.
The instruction was erroneous for it charges the jury that they may award him damages "for any and an loss of earning capacity which he may reasonably be expected to sustain on account of any physical and mental impairment during his life from and after his majority," regardless of whether such loss of earning capacity is occasioned by physical or mental impairment which is proximately caused or contributed to by the explosion complained of.
Mississippi Central R. R. Co. v. Lott, 80 So. 277, 118 Miss. 816, 294 U.S. 616.
The court erred in the adverse rulings made upon appellant's objection to the argument of counsel for appellee, and erred in overruling the motion of appellants for the discharge of the jury and the entry of a mistrial on account of said highly prejudicial and improper argument of counsel for appellee.
Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. M. Levy & Sons, 112 So. 786; Haines v. Haines, 54 So. 433; Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Weinstein, 99 Miss. 515, 55 So. 48; New Orleans & N.E. R. Co. v. Jackson, 140 Miss. 375, 105, So. 770; J. J. Newman Lumber Co. v. Norris, 130, Miss. 751, 94 So. 881; White's Market and Grocery Co. v. John, 153 Miss. 860, 121 So. 825; Pickwick Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Silver, 155 Miss. 765, 125 So. 340; Morse v. Phillips, 157 Miss. 452, 128, So. 336; Morrell Packing Co. v. Branning, 124 So. 356.
Excessive verdicts are within the control of the judges of the trial courts, and they are charged with the duty of awarding relief therefrom.
Gulf M. & N. R. Co. v. Jones, 125 So. 114.
The court must see that the trial is a fair one, and that the damages awarded are not beyond the bounds of reason or beyond the pale where reasonable minds might differ as to the amount.
New Orleans Great Northern R. Co. v. Frazer, 130 So. 493.
The verdict for twenty thousand dollars was so excessive as to evince passion, prejudice and undue influence on the jury.
Knight v. Vicksburg, S. & P. Ry. Co., 76 So. 799; Carver v. City of Jackson, 82 Miss. 583; Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Cobb, 48 So. 522; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Williams, 144 Miss. 804, 110 So. 510; Sanders v. Quercus Lumber Co., 187 Mo.App. 408, 173 S.W. 740; Hayes v. Smith, 15 Ohio, C. C. 300, 8 Ohio, C. D. 92; Knight v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co., 142 La. 357, 76 So. 799; International & G. N. R. Co. v. Underwood, 64 Tex. 463; Young v. Gravenhurst, 22 Ont. L. Rep. 291, 17 Ont. Week. Rep. 491, 2 Ont. Week. N. 262, 24 Ont. L. Rep. 467; 19 Ont. Week. Rep. 925, 3 Ont. Week. N. 10; Lapleine v. Morgan's L. & T. R. & S. S. Co., 40 La. Ann. 661, 1 L. R. A. 378, 4 So. 875; Sherwood v. Crescent Creamery Co., 130 Minn. 263, 153 N.W. 525; Rock v. J. E. Tilt Shoe Co., 168 Ill.App. 467; Payne v. McNeeley, 123 Miss. 248, 85 So. 197; Yazoo & M. Valley R. Co. v. Mothershed, 122 Miss. 835, 85 So. 98; Austin v. Browning, 150 S.W. 961; Gibbon v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 8 Kulp, 492; South Omaha v. Sutliffe, 72 Neb. 746, 101 N.W. 997; Elgin J. & E. R. Co. v. Raymond, 47 Ill.App. 242, 148 Ill. 241, 35 N.E. 729; Kelmer v. Reckitt, 75 A.D. 180, 77 N.Y.S. 395.
No citation of authority is necessary to convince the court that jurors under financial obligations to a person or corporation having pecuniary interest in the outcome of the litigation are subject to challenge for cause. It is admitted that at least two of the jurors gave false answers and thus lulled appellants in to a sense of security and into accepting them which they would not have done had they known of the relationship of debtor and creditor.
J. A. Cunningham, Floyd W. Cunningham, Lacey & Lacey and J. E. Cunningham, all of Booneville, for appellee.
The instruction granted appellee on the measure of damages was not erroneous.
Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Pate, 126 So. 480-483; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Rogers, 9 So. 823; Bonnelli v. Branciere, 90 So. 245; Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Williams, 110 So. 510.
The trial court heard the arguments offered by counsel for defendant, and he could fairly judge whether the counsel for appellant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial