Stallcup v. Rathbun, 5599
| Decision Date | 22 June 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 5599,5599 |
| Citation | 76 Ariz. 63,258 P.2d 821 |
| Parties | STALLCUP et ux. v. RATHBUN. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Moore & Romley, of Phoenix, for appellants.
Geo. T. Wilson and Minne & Sorenson, of Phoenix, for appellee.
The parties are before us in the reverse order of their appearance in the trial court, but for convenience reference will be made to them herein as they there appeared, namely as plaintiff and defendants.
The injuries giving rise to the instant suit resulted from a collision between the family car driven by defendant, George Ann Stallcup, and a motorcycle on which the plaintiff, Fred Rathbun, was riding. The motor vehicles were traveling in opposite directions on a busy thoroughfare when Mrs. Stallcup made a left turn in the middle of a block directly in the path of the oncoming motorcycle. The jury by their verdict have resolved the question of negligence and proximate cause adversely to the defendants and there is no occasion for us on this limited appeal to review the evidence as to these matters.
Plaintiff suffered a dislocation of the right hip, fracture of the rim of the acetabulum or segment of the hip joint, extensive laceration of the right knee into the knee joint, other lacerations on the right lower leg extending from hip to ankle, a road burn on the right arm, a cut over the left eye and a cut on the left arm. He was immediately hospitalized where he remained for a little over three months. It was necessary to operate on the right hip to remove loose fragments of the rim of the socket and to free the sciatic nerve from sharp impactment. Later an operation on the knee was necessary to repair damage which had occurred under the surface of the knee cap and to the front surface of the lower end of the thigh bone in the joint.
The medical testimony--plaintiff's attending physician, Dr. Geo. A. Williamson, was the only medical expert--showed that there was a possibility that the ball part of the hip joint might later collapse from a failure of the blood supply, or that an arthritic condition might develop, either of which would require further surgery; that it was impossible to determine what the loss of function of his leg would be in the future, not knowing what changes, if any, would occur; that if no further operations became necessary then 25% impairment of the leg would be a conservative estimate of the permanent loss of function. With such a permanent impairment it was the doctor's opinion that ultimately plaintiff 'should be able to do any type of work which does not require too strenuous activity on his feet'.
When injured, plaintiff was 22 years old with a life expectancy of 40.7 years, employed as a laborer and equipment operator by the Logan Drilling Company. His earnings had averaged $350 per month for the three months preceding the accident. The loss of earnings and medical expense to date of trial (some seven months after the accident) totaled $5,380.80.
The matter of exemplary damages was withdrawn from the jury's consideration. A unanimous verdict for $45,000 was returned. At the hearing on motion for new trial the court held the amount excessive and denied the motion for new trial upon condition that plaintiff file a remittitur of $15,000, which was done.
The defendants do not here complain of any error occurring during the course of the trial. Their sole assignment of error is:
'The trial court erred in denying defendants' amended motion for a new trial, for the reason that the jury's award of damages was so excessive it could only have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice.'
While the notice of appeal includes '* * * the judgment as reduced and modified by the remittitur filed by plaintiff on June 1, 1951 * * *', the defendants are not now contending that the judgment for the reduced amount remains excessive or that it could be corrected by a further decrease by this court under the provisions of Section 21-1833, A.C.A.1939. See, Jacob v. Miner, 67 Ariz. 109, 122, 191 P.2d 734. The defendants have thereby narrowed this appeal to the correctness of the trial court's order denying their motion for a new trial, asserting that passion and prejudice as indicated from the jury's large verdict entitled them to this. Sec. 21-1301, A.C.A.1939.
If in truth and fact this record discloses passion and prejudice upon the part of the jury in arriving at their verdict (which might affect liability as well as cause liberality), then we agree with defendants' position that a new trial should be granted. Justice Sloan, speaking for this court in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Acuna v. Kroack
...outrageous as to shock the conscience of this court.'" Hutcherson, 192 Ariz. 51, ¶ 36, 961 P.2d at 455, quoting Stallcup v. Rathbun, 76 Ariz. 63, 66, 258 P.2d 821, 824 (1953). We have no basis for reaching that conclusion ¶ 37 Having determined that the trial court did not abuse its discret......
-
Dagnello v. Long Island Rail Road Company
...v. Bumpus, 1915, 194 Ala. 69, 69 So. 566. Arizona: Allied Van Lines, Inc. v. Parsons, 1956, 80 Ariz. 88, 293 P.2d 430; Stallcup v. Rathbun, 1953, 76 Ariz. 63, 258 P.2d 821; Standard Oil Co. of California v. Shields, 1941, 58 Ariz. 239, 119 P.2d Arkansas: Pfeifers of Arkansas v. Rorex, 1956,......
-
Acuna v. Kroack, 2 CA-CV 2005-0049.
...outrageous as to shock the conscience of this court.'" Hutcherson, 192 Ariz. 51, ¶ 36, 961 P.2d at 455, quoting Stallcup v. Rathbun, 76 Ariz. 63, 66, 258 P.2d 821, 824 (1953). We have no basis for reaching that conclusion ¶ 36 Having determined that the trial court did not abuse its discret......
-
Soto v. Sacco
...outrageous," remittitur is not an appropriate remedy. Hanscome , 227 Ariz. at 162 ¶ 13, 254 P.3d at 401 (quoting Stallcup v. Rathbun , 76 Ariz. 63, 65, 67, 258 P.2d 821 (1953) ). Under those circumstances, the court must instead order a new trial. Id. When, as here, the verdict is neither t......