Pierson v. M. & M. Bus Co

• Decision Date: 20 November 1946
• Docket Number: No. 31442.,31442.
• Citation: 40 S.E.2d. 561
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Parties: PIERSON. v. M. & M. BUS CO.

40 S.E.2d. 561

PIERSON.

v.M. & M. BUS CO.

No. 31442.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

Nov. 20, 1946.

Syllables by the Court

1. Every presumption and inference is in favor of the verdict, and the verdict in this case, for the same amount claimed as special damages, was not so small as to justify an inference of gross mistake or undue bias.

2. The language of the trial judge in the order overruling the motion for new trial was not such as to negative his unqualified approval of the verdict.

Error from City Court of Macon; Cecil A. Baldwin, Judge.

Action by Pansy E. Pierson against M. & M. Bus Company for injuries allegedly sustained while plaintiff was riding as a passenger in defendant's bus. To review an allegedly inadequate judgment, plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

Hallie B. Bell and Hall & Bloch, all of Macon, for plaintiff in error.

Miller G. Edwards and Martin, Martin & Snow, all of Macon, for defendant in error.

PARKER, Judge.

Mrs. Pansy E. Pierson brought suit against M. & M. Bus Company for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by her while riding as a passenger in a bus operated by the defendant as a carrier for hire. She sued for $15,000 as general damages and for $390.15 as special damages. The jury found a verdict in her favor for $390.15. She filed a motion for a new trialon the general grounds and on one special ground setting up that the verdict was inadequate, unfair, unjust and contrary to the evidence, and was so small that it demanded a conclusion of gross mistake or undue bias on the part of the jury against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant. Her motion for new trial was overruled, and error is assigned on that judgment as being contrary to law, and also upon the ground that the court did not unqualifiedly approve the verdict. Two questions are therefore presented for decision by this court.

1. As to the first contention, that the verdict was entirely too small, and was wholly inadequate as compensation for the injuries received, the plaintiff cites the Code, § 105-201S (also § 20-1411), as follows: "The question of damages being one for the jury, the court should not interfere, unless the damages arc either so small or so excessive as to justify the inference of gross mistake or undue bias." The plaintiff also cites on this point the following cases: Travers v. Macon Ry. & Light Co, 19 Ga. App. 15, 90 S.E. 732; Slaughter v. Atlanta Coca-Cola Bottling Co, 48 Ga.App. 327, 172 S.E. 723; Potter v. Swindle, 77 Ga. 419, 3 S.E. 94; and Anglin v. City of Columbus, 128 Ga. 469, 57 S.E. 780. In the Travers case this court held that where the verdict establishes liability, and the proof showed actual damages resulting from the injuries amounting to $107, and also pain and suffering, a verdict for $1 for the plaintiff was grossly inadequate and contrary to law and the evidence. In the Slaughter case where the plaintiff sued for damages for pain and suffering caused from burns to her mouth received while drinking a bottle of Coca-Cola containing a percentage of caustic soda or similar element, and the undisputed evidence showed that her mouth was burned apparently by some caustic, that her physician continued to see her at intervals for many weeks and she was in bed a part of the time for a week or more, it was held that the verdict for $1 could not be considered as sufficient compensation for whatever pain and suffering the plaintiff may have endured. In the Potter case, which was a suit for false imprisonment, where it appeared that the plaintiff was ar rested without a warrant, and was handcuffed and carried out of the county and incarcerated for several days, the Supreme Court held that a verdict for $25 was not sufficient compensation for the injury. In the Anglin case, a suit for damages resulting from the fall of a shed constructed over a sidewalk, the injuries to the plaintiff were so severe that she was confined to her bed perfectly helpless for about two months, and afterwards was confined to her bed for about half the time, and her injuries required the constant treatment of a doctor, it was held that a verdict in the plaintiff's favor for $100 was so small as to require the inference of gross mistake or undue bias. See also McLendon v. Floyd, 59 Ga. App. 506, 1 S.E.2d 466, holding that a verdict for $300 was inadequate where the undisputed evidence showed actual damages to the plaintiff resulting from the injuries sustained, in the loss of wages amounting to $400, and medical expenses amounting to $300, and also severe pain and suffering.

In this case the plaintiff testified that her right shoulder was broken and dislocated, that she received other injuries to her arm, hands, back, knee and ankle, and that she was in the hospital at Robins Field for three days; that after the government doctors discharged her she went to Dr. Massen-burg and Dr. Pope, to the latter because she was afraid of ear trouble, and that she went to Dr. McLaughlin to see if her eyes were causing the pains in her head. Later on she went to the hospital in Panama City because of violent headaches and pains in her left leg and back, and in November, 1945, she discovered that she had some injury or pain in her left leg for which she went to a hospital in Thomasville, Ga. Her testimony as to actual expenses incurred on account of the injuries was vague,...