Sebring v. Mawby, 118.
| Decision Date | 03 October 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 118.,118. |
| Citation | 251 Mich. 628,232 N.W. 194 |
| Parties | SEBRING v. MAWBY et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; Guy E. Smith, Judge.
Action by Della E. Sebring against Frank Mawby and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Edward N. Barnard, of Detroit, for appellants.
G. Sweetman Smith, of Detroit, for appellee.
In an action to recover damages for injuries received when struck by the defendant's automobile, the plaintiff received a verdict for $4,490, of which $4,000 was for pain and suffering, $300 was for hospital expense, and $100 was for medical services. A motion for a new trial was made on the ground that the verdict was excessive. The motion was denied, and the defendants have brought error.
The sole question involved is whether the verdict, as to the amount allowed for pain and suffering, is excessive.
The plaintiff was 59 years of age at the time of the accident. She suffered concussion of the brain, a fracture of the hip, and what the surgeon described as ‘a condition to the kidney zone and some hemorrhage from this organ.’ She was in a plaster cast for eight weeks. At the time of the trial, six months after the accident, she was able to move about to a limited extent by means of crutches. The evidence shows serious and painful injuries, followed by intense suffering for a long period.
The law furnishes no exact rule by which damages for pain and suffering can be measured. Their determination must necessarily be left to the good sense and sound judgment of the jury in their view of the evidence. It has frequently been said by courts and text-writers that the award of the jury will not be disturbed unless it is so great as to shock the judicial conscience or unless it was induced by something outside of the evidence, such as passion or prejudice. There is no claim of any such influence in this case. In view of the evidence, we cannot say that the verdict was excessive.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
MacDonald v. Skornia, 41.
...a condition, the verdict in this respect will not be disturbed on appeal. Paton v. Stealy, 272 Mich. 57, 261 N.W. 131;Sebring v. Mawby, 251 Mich. 628, 232 N.W. 194;Oliver v. Detroit Taxicab Co., 210 Mich. 89, 177 N.W. 235, and Teeter v. Pugsley, 319 Mich. 508, 29 N.W.2d 850. Here, the plain......
-
Price v. High Pointe Oil Co.
...must necessarily be left to the good sense and sound judgment of the jury in their view of the evidence.” Sebring v. Mawby, 251 Mich. 628, 629, 232 N.W. 194 (1930). Given the evidence presented by plaintiff and the lack of support for defendant's claim that the jury was improperly influence......
-
Bosak v. Hutchinson
...or $600 to compensate for pain and suffering. Such amount would be within the reasonable discretion of the jury. See Sebring v Mawby, 251 Mich 628 [232 N.W. 194 (1930) ]. case, was based on the claim that the verdict was "We do not wish to suggest that the testimony necessitates such findin......
-
Nezworski v. Mazanec
...or sympathy.’ See, also, Watrous v. Conor, 266 Mich. 397, 254 N.W. 143;Michaels v. Smith, 240 Mich. 671, 216 N.W. 413;Sebring v. Mawby, 251 Mich. 628, 232 N.W. 194;Cawood v. Earl Paige & Co., 239 Mich. 485, 214 N.W. 402;Weil v. Longyear, 263 Mich. 22, 248 N.W. 536;Campbell v. Brown, 276 Mic......