Richards v. Beaver Valley Traction Co
| Decision Date | 14 July 1932 |
| Docket Number | 129-1932 |
| Parties | Richards, Appellant, v. Beaver Valley Traction Co |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued April 28, 1932
Appeal by plaintiff from judgment of C. P., Allegheny County October T., 1929, No. 3870, in the case of Emma Richards v Beaver Valley Traction Company.
Motion for new trial in action of trespass to recover for personal injuries. Before Patterson, P. J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
The court discharged the plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was the order of the court.
Affirmed.
Walter L. Dipple, and with him Ellis R. Defibaugh, for appellant.
Thompson Brodshaw, for appellee.
Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, Gawthrop, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld and Parker, JJ.
On the 30th day of May, 1929, in alighting from a street car the plaintiff was thrown back on the steps by the premature starting of the car.
She brought suit in trespass to recover damages, and a verdict in her favor in the sum of $ 400 resulted. She has taken an appeal alleging that the verdict is inadequate.
In the year 1925 she met with an accident, which left her permanently injured. Her first accident was very similar to the one for which she now claims compensation. She was still using a crutch when the second accident occurred.
There was testimony in the case that the injuries sued for were entirely a result of the first accident. There was testimony to show that the second accident aggravated her injuries. There was also some to the effect that this aggravation was only temporary.
It is very evident from a reading of the testimony that most of plaintiff's present ailments could be ascribed to her first accident. The jury evidently adopted the view that there was a temporary aggravation of her injuries. The sum of $ 400 would appear to be a fair verdict under such circumstances. There was surely no abuse of discretion by the court in refusing to grant a new trial on the plea that the above sum was inadequate. It was a matter entirely for the jury. "It is well settled that the power of the appellate courts of this state to grant a new trial upon the ground of excessiveness or inadequacy of damages awarded by the jury is exceptional in character and only to be exercised in very clear cases of wrong or injustice which the court below should have remedied": Chestnut...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elza v. Chovan
...1047, nominal damages were described as 'inconsistent and unreasonable' and 'a travesty of justice'. In Richards v. Beaver Valley Traction Co., 1932, 105 Pa.Super. 248, 161 A. 596, the court spoke of 'very clear cases of wrong or injustice which the court below should have There is nothing ......
-
Stevens v. Frank
...injustice which that court should have remedied. Jones v. Pennsylvania Co., 60 Pa.Super. 438; Richards v. Beaver Valley Traction Co., 105 Pa.Super. 248, 161 A. 596; Zamojc v. Fisher, 127 Pa.Super. 171, 193 A. 315; Patterson v. Pittsburgh Rys. Co., 136 Pa.Super. 432, 435, 7 A.2d 478. Wife pl......
-
Zamojc v. Fisher
...71 Pa. Super. 554, 558), and establish a clear case of wrong and injustice in the court below. Richards v. Beaver Valley Traction Co., 105 Pa.Super. 248, 161 A. 596; Woodward v. Consolidated Traction Co., 17 Pa.Super. 576, 579; Jones v. Pennsylvania Co., 60 Pa. Super. 438; Reno v. Shallenbe......
- N. Y. Central Railroad Co. v. County of Venango