Sayegh v. Davis

• Decision Date: 17 April 1925
• Docket Number: No. 6001.,6001.
• Citation: 128 A. 573
• Parties: SAYEGH v. DAVIS.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

128 A. 573

SAYEGH

v. DAVIS.

No. 6001.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

April 17, 1925.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Edward W. Blodgett, Judge.

Action by Francis Sayegh against Frank A. Davis. Verdict for plaintiff. From an order denying defendant's motion for new trial, and granting plaintiff's motion for new trial on question of damages only, defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions sustained, and case remitted for new trial.

Thomas P. Corcoran, of Pawtucket, for plaintiff.

Benjamin W. Grim, of Providence, for defendant.

RATHBUN, J. This is an action of trespass on the case for negligence to recover for personal injuries and property damage. The cause involves a collision between two automobiles owned and operated at the time of the accident by the parties respectively. The trial in the superior court resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $180, and the case is before us on the defendant's exceptions taken to the ruling of the trial justice, denying the defendant's motion for a new trial, and granting the plaintiff's motion for a new trial on the question of damages only.

In Clark v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 33 R. I. 83, 80 A. 406, Ann. Cas. 1913B. 356, it was held that the superior court has jurisdiction to grant a new trial upon the question of damages alone, but at page 103 (80 A. 413) the court said:

"A party cannot demand on a motion for a new trial that, without regard to the views of the trial judge, the findings which are in his favor shall remain undisturbed, while only those which are prejudicial or unsatisfactory to him shall be passed upon."

Ordinarily, when a new trial is necessary because the jury has failed to properly respond to the question of damages, it is more fair to both parties to submit to another jury all issues of facts as to which the evidence is clearly conflicting (see Crane v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 68 App. Div. 202, 74 N. Y. S. 117), and a new trial should never be ordered on the question of damages alone when there is ground for a strong suspicion that the jury awarded the inadequate damages as a result of a compromise involving the question of liability. See In re Booth's Will, 6 N. Y. S. 41.¹ We think that the verdict in the case before us resulted from such a compromise.

At the trial of the case each party contended that the negligence of the other was the cause of the accident. The left front wheels of the two cars collided and one of the questions presented was which of the automobiles was on the left of the center of the traveled way. The plaintiff's testimony is very unsatisfactory. The accident occurred in the early evening, but it was not foggy, and the plaintiff testified that the reason for his not observing the...