Pike v. Scribner
| Decision Date | 07 March 1961 |
| Citation | 168 A.2d 114,103 N.H. 203 |
| Parties | Marilyn F. PIKE v. George C. SCRIBNER. Roland M. PIKE v. George C. SCRIBNER. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Fisher, Parsons & Moran, and Harold D. Moran, Dover, for plaintiffs.
Devine, Millimet & McDonough, and Shane Devine, Manchester, for defendant.
The principal issue before us is whether the verdict for the plaintiff was excessive. The defendant maintains that the award is 'shocking to the conscience' and 'manifestly exorbitant.' The evidence discloses that the plaintiff, age thirty-three, used neck traction for six months, did orthopedic exercises and complained of severe headaches occurring every two or three weeks. The plaintiff was not employed at the time of the accident but beginning in April 1959 she commenced regular employment and during a period of eleven months lost only a few days' employment because of headaches. Her medical and hospital bills totalled $146. The plaintiff in support of the verdict emphasizes the fact that the injuries sustained by her were both painful and of a permanent nature, that this condition existed at the time of trial in 1960 and that she was still using the stretching device prescribed by her doctor.
It may be that the misleading, much-abused and emotionally charged phrase 'whiplash injuries' was a factor in the verdict. Thomson, The Counterfeit Phrase of Neck Lash Injuries, 2 Orthopedics 125 (1960); Threadgill, Whiplash Injury--End-Results in 88 Cases, XXIX Medical Annals of the District of Columbia, 266 (1960). The 'expressions 'whiplash' and 'necklash' are not medical terms and have been much abused.' 3 Schwartz, Trial of Automobile Accident Cases, s. 1700 (1960). See also, Jackson, Neck Injuries, 1 Trauma 7 (Feb. 1960); Schwartz, § 1725, supra; Medicolegal Aspects of Head, Neck and Back Injuries (Stumpf and Horwitz, editors 1955) § 149. However, it is impossible on the record before us to ascertain whether the phrase 'whiplash injuries' caused the jury to fall into plain error in assessing damages or whether the verdict was excessive for some other reason since the medical testimony is not part of the record in this appeal. Obviously the amount of damages recoverable in a personal injury suit depends in a large measure upon the medical testimony, and it would be difficult as well as unrealistic for this court to attempt to review the damages without such testimony.
It is argued that this is a classic challenge for ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loney v. Parsons, No. 6122
...358 (1870); Pierce v. Mowry, 106 N.H. 306, 210 A.2d 484 (1965). I respectfully suggest that we lack the 'tools' (Pike v. Scribner, 103 N.H. 203, 205, 168 A.2d 114, 115 (1961)) to make the reduction the majority orders in this case. The injuries to Nancy Towle included scarring, crippled leg......
-
Welch v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc.
...say the verdict rendered is without foundation on the entire record. See Hanlon v. Pomeroy, 102 N.H. 407, 157 A.2d 646; Pike v. Scribner, 103 N.H. 203, 168 A.2d 114; Annot. 16 A.L.R.2d Judgment on the verdict. All concurred. ...
-
Armstrong v. Bergeron
...rear by defendant's automobile. She received what was referred to as a 'whiplash' injury to her neck and head. Cf. Pike v. Scribner, 103 N.H. 203, 204-205, 168 A.2d 114. August 5, 1959 while stopped at a railroad crossing on the same street her car was hit in the rear by a motor vehicle ope......