St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Dillingham
| Decision Date | 23 September 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 41475,No. 1,41475,1 |
| Citation | 112 Ga.App. 422,145 S.E.2d 624 |
| Parties | ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. Evelyn DILLINGHAM |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
The amount of a verdict for pain and suffering addresses itself to the jury trying the case in the first instance. Whether the amount returned is so large or so small as to be 'out of bounds' is for the decision of the trial judge where the issue is made on motion for a new trial. This court in effect looks only to the question of whether the trial judge abused his discretion, and where it does not appear that the amount of such a verdict, approved by the trial court, is so egregiously outrageous as to shock the conscience, and it does not otherwise appear from the record that it resulted from bias or prejudice, this court will not interfere.
The plaintiff, a 59-year-old woman, was injured in November, 1963, when the driver of a van belonging to defendant moving company attempting to make a left turn from an outside lane, crashed into the side of the automobile which she was driving. The plaintiff was knocked unconscious by the blow, and when taken to the hospital for emergency treatment was nauseated, bruised, her right arm was badly swollen, and she suffered pain in the chest, back, neck, arm and shoulders. She remained one week in the hospital where she was given traction for 45 minutes of every hour and regular hypodermics for pain. On discharge from the hospital she was equipped with a Thomas collar to support the head, remained in bed for six weeks, continued with traction, heat and massage for 16 weeks, and then was transferred to a health center for further therapy. At the time of the trial in November, 1964, her right arm continued to pain her and she could not close her right hand or grasp objects with it. She suffers severe headaches at the base of the skull necessitating medication every three or four hours, has radiating pain into the spine and from the shoulders through the right arm to the wrist and fingers. She suffers from insomnia due to pain and the traction has changed her mouth formation so as to necessitate new dentures. Since the doctor who had been treating her died shortly prior to the trial the only medical witness was the physician who had cared for her during the week in the hospital. He diagnosed the injury as a whiplash 'in all probability permanent in nature' from which it might be expected, due to present symptoms after the lapse of time, that she would be prone to continued pain, more prone to re-injury, and more susceptible to arthritic complications in the future.
The plaintiff sued for $25,000 for past pain and suffering and $35,000 for future pain and suffering. The jury returned a verdict for the sum of these amounts, $60,000. Defendants' motion for a new trial, based on the sole ground that the verdict was excessive, was overruled by the trial judge.
Oliver & Maner, Joseph M. Oliver, Savannah, for plaintiff in error.
Dawson & Phillips, R. L. Dawson, Richard D. Phillips, Ludowici, for defendant in error.
No question of comparative or contributory negligence enters into this award. The sums found for future pain and suffering are to be determined by the enlightened conscience of impartial jurors, and are not to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Ford
...in overruling the motion for new trial [or for reduction of damages] on this ground. [Cits.]" St. Paul Fire, etc., Ins. Co. v. Dillingham, 112 Ga.App. 422, 425, 145 S.E.2d 624. In the cases sub judice, the evidence authorized the conclusion that Uniroyal Goodrich failed to act diligently an......
-
Aretz v. United States
...jurors. The award for future pain and suffering does not have to be reduced to present cash value. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Dillingham, 112 Ga.App. 422, 424, 145 S.E.2d 624. The term "pain and suffering" covers disfigurement and deformity. Ableman v. Ormond, 53 Ga.App. 75......
-
Reliance Ins. Co. v. Bridges, s. 66404
...recognized that comparison between cases should not be made because no two cases are precisely alike. St. Paul Fire etc. Ins. Co. v. Dillingham, 112 Ga.App. 422, 424, 145 S.E.2d 624; Colonial Stores v. Coker, 77 Ga.App. 227, 234(9), 48 S.E.2d 150. We set out the argued cases here. In Woods ......
-
Smith v. Crump
...being excessive." See Reliance Ins. Co. v. Bridges, 168 Ga.App. 874(16), 890, 311 S.E.2d 193 (1983); St. Paul Fire, etc., Ins. Co. v. Dillingham, 112 Ga.App. 422, 425, 145 S.E.2d 624 (1965); Shepherd Constr. Co. v. Vaughn, 88 Ga.App. 285(8), 294, 76 S.E.2d 647 (1953); Brown v. Service Coach......