Stringfellow v. Rambo, 1 Div. 214

Citation170 So.2d 494,277 Ala. 349
Decision Date07 January 1965
Docket Number1 Div. 214
PartiesWillie STRINGFELLOW et al. d/b/a Evans' Feed Mill v. Carl RAMBO.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Collins, Galloway & Murphy, Mobile, for appellants.

M. A. Marsal and Howell, Johnston & Langford, Mobile, for appellee.

COLEMAN, Justice.

Defendants appeal from a judgment for plaintiff in action for personal injury sustained by plaintiff when one of defendants drove a truck into the rear of an automobile plaintiff was driving. At time of collision, plaintiff's vehicle was in a line of cars stopped at a traffic light.

The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for $17,000.00 and judgment was entered accordingly.

Defendants argue that the court erred in overruling the grounds of their motion for new trial which assert that the verdict is excessive.

There is no yardstick by which compensatory damages for pain and suffering can be measured, and the ascertainment of the amount due plaintiff for such damages must be left to the sound discretion of the jury, subject only to correction by the court for clear abuse or passionate exercise. W. S. Fowler Rental Equipment Co. v. Skipper, 276 Ala. 593, 165 So.2d 375, 386.

The verdict of the jury should not be interfered with merely because, in the opinion of the court, the jury gave too little or too much, and the authority vested in courts to disturb a jury verdict on the ground of excessiveness should be exercised with great caution. Carlisle v. Miller, 275 Ala. 440, 444, 155 So.2d 689.

Where the trial court refuses to grant a new trial because he does not believe the verdict to be excessive, the favorable presumption attending the jury's verdict is thereby strengthened. Vest v. Gay, 275 Ala. 286, 288, 154 So.2d 297.

Trial was had in November, 1963. Plaintiff testified that the injury occurred in June, 1961; he went to a Mobile doctor a few days thereafter; four or five days after he returned to his home in Tennessee, plaintiff consulted an orthopedic surgeon who examined plaintiff and took X-rays; plaintiff was 'Suffering from muscle spasm or pains in my neck that was piercing down into may shoulder and aches and pain I still have today'; plaintiff was treated by the Tennessee physician for about two weeks, and then was hospitalized; he stayed in the hospital seven to nine days; he was put in head traction and slept in head harness; plaintiff was a salesman traveling in north Florida across into Louisiana; he went back to work; he felt very comfortable but still had something wrong with his neck; he was hospitalized again in November, 1961, for thirty-one days; during the interval between the two hospitalizations he had a standing appointment with the doctor not more than once a month and was re-examined and re-X-rayed; he went back to the doctor more often when he had spasms or pain, and, in November, was sent back to the hospital; he had primarily the same treatment; they would give him sonic treatment and stretch his neck up, 21 pounds for a few minutes at a time and 6 pounds while in bed; at the end of the month he was improved but still had pain; after two weeks' rest he went back to work; he changed companies; a factory salesman covers 50,000 miles a year; his later job did not require as much driving but he still has to do a lot of continuous driving; he continued to go to the doctor until in June, 1962, the doctor told plaintiff that he had a permanent disability; plaintiff has been on the road since January, 1962; his neck...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Central of Georgia Ry. Co. v. Steed
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 8, 1971
    ...the ground that in the opinion of the court the jury gave too much. Airheart v. Green, supra, and cases there cited. Stringellow v. Rambo, 277 Ala. 349, 170 So.2d 494 (1965). We have carefully studied the entire record, taking into consideration the guiding principles set out in Airheart v.......
  • Patterson v. Byrd
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • January 4, 1984
    ...it is wrong and unjust and constitutes an abuse of discretion. Vinyard v. Duck, 278 Ala. 687, 180 So.2d 522 (1965); Stringfellow v. Rambo, 277 Ala. 349, 170 So.2d 494 (1965). This court, speaking through its first distinguished presiding judge, Judge T. Werth Thagard, in the case of King v.......
  • Fields v. Parker
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • July 28, 1978
    ...Miller, 276 Ala. 195, 160 So.2d 479 (1964); Atlanta Life Ins. Co. v. Stanley, 276 Ala. 642, 165 So.2d 731 (1964); Stringfellow v. Rambo, 277 Ala. 349, 170 So.2d 494 (1965); Durham v. Sims, 279 Ala. 516, 187 So.2d 558 (1966); Alabama Power Co. v. Mosley, 294 Ala. 394, 318 So.2d 260 (1975). S......
  • Olive v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • July 18, 1984
    ...is charged to an award for pain and suffering. Damages for such are largely within the discretion of the jury. Stringfellow v. Rambo, 277 Ala. 349, 170 So.2d 494 (1965); Mack v. Garrison, 51 Ala.App. 453, 286 So.2d 857 (Ala.Civ.App.1973). The presumption of the correctness of the jury's ver......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT