Summerfield v. Pringle
| Decision Date | 15 December 1943 |
| Docket Number | 7087 |
| Citation | 65 Idaho 300,144 P.2d 214 |
| Parties | GERTRUDE SUMMERFIELD, Respondent, v. CLARA M. PRINGLE, Appellant |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
A verdict on conflicting evidence in a law action will not be disturbed on appeal.
It is the function of the jury to pass upon the weight and credibility of the evidence.
In considering conflicting evidence reviewing court must accept the evidence most favorable to verdict giving every reasonable inference and intendment in support thereof, and if more than one reasonable conclusion or inference can be drawn to accept the one sustaining the verdict.
In action for alienation of affections it was within province of jury, considering the evidence as a whole, to take into consideration circumstantial evidence if any which showed or attempted to show that defendant maliciously, systematically and continuously influenced her son whereby his love and affection for plaintiff was alienated.
The fact that evidence in action for alienation of affections is circumstantial does not impair its usefulness nor deprive it of its potency.
Evidence in action for alienation of affections against mother of plaintiff's husband was sufficient to support verdict for plaintiff.
Instruction in action for alienation of affections sufficiently instructed jury that presumption of law that parents have right to be interested in affairs of their married children and advise them regarding such affairs must be overcome by competent evidence, and it must be shown that parents acted maliciously and with intent to alienate the affections of the child.
Assignment of error to effect that verdict was made under influence of passion and prejudice and is excessive can be considered on appeal from judgment awarding damages for alienation of affections, without motion for new trial based upon that ground.
In considering question of damages for alienation of affections against mother of plaintiff's husband, jury could consider the future probability that upon defendant's death plaintiff's husband would receive by inheritance an interest in mother's estate in which plaintiff would have a contingent interest with her husband.
Jury, in considering question of damages in action for alienation of affections against mother of plaintiff's husband, were at liberty to consider the loss of consortium which is the gist of the action for alienation of affections.
Husband and wife
The amount of damages for alienation of affections is peculiarly for jury to determine under all the facts and circumstances, and in the absence of abuse of discretion the verdict will not be disturbed.
Presumption is that jury after hearing all testimony and receiving instructions of court with reference to amount of damages for alienation of affections took into consideration all elements of damages set out in the instructions.
Reviewing court will take action because of excessiveness of a verdict where it is apparent that the error has occurred from miscalculation of the jury or misconception of the basis on which calculation should be made, or where the only apparent reason for excessive character of the verdict is that it was the result of passion.
Judgment for damages for alienation of affections against mother of plaintiff's husband in the amount of $35,000 compensatory damages and $15,000 punitive damages would be affirmed, in case of remittitur so as to allow $20,000 compensatory damages and $1,000 punitive damages, it appearing that defendant was worth around $300,000, and that plaintiff's husband was one of two heirs of defendant.
Appeal from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, for Twin Falls County. Hon. James W. Porter, Judge. Action for damages for alienation of affections. Held for plaintiff. Affirmed, verdict reduced.
Rayborn and Rayborn and Hawley and Hawley for appellant.
The evidence is insufficient to justify any verdict in that it fails to show that Harold Pringle lost his affections for respondent--that the appellant, by any malicious acts or statements, contributed, as a controlling factor, to the separation and subsequent divorce of respondent and her husband. The evidence affirmatively shows that the difficulties occurring between the respondent and her husband were due to mutual disagreements not caused by any malicious conduct or statement of the appellant but due to the respondent's own conduct and statements and those of her parents. Covers assignments No. I and IV. .).
The verdict, both as to actual damages and punitive damages, was excessive and rendered under the influence of passion and prejudice. (Bathke v. Krassin, (Minn.) 80 N.W. 850; Heisler v. Heisler, 127 N.W. 823; Okrent v. Raffa, (Ky.) 206 Ky. 211, 266 S.W. 1079; 13 R.C.L. 1483.).
Chapman and Chapman for respondent.
The sufficiency of the evidence and the amount of the damages awarded are questions peculiarly within the province of the jury. (Hayward v. Ham, (Mo. App.) 59 S.W.2d 725; Brandt v. Brandt, (Fla.) 138 Fla. 243, 189 So. 275; Rockwell v. Rockwell. (Minn.) 181 Minn. 13, 231 N.W. 718; Stanley v. Stanley, (Wash.) 32 Wash. 489, 73 P. 596; Murray v. Murray, (N.M.) 30 N.M. 557, 240 P. 303; Wallace v. Wallace, (Mont.) 85 Mont. 492, 279 P. 374.).
Where no objection has been made to the amount of the recovery as excessive or that it was the result of passion and prejudice, by way of motion for new trial, it cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. (Sec. 399, 3 Am. Jur., p. 131; Sec. 401, 3 Am. Jur., p. 132; Sec. 339, 4 C.J.S., p. 747; Sec. 781, 3 C.J. p. 739; Ellis v. Ashton and St. Anthony Power Co., 41 Ida. 106, 238 P. 517; Campbell v. Jones, 41 Cal. 515, 14 P. St. Rep.).
The verdict of the jury both as to compensatory and punitive damages is not excessive nor does not suggest passion and prejudice or corruption on the part of the jury. (Mohn v. Tingley, (Cal.) 191 Cal. 470, 217 P. 733; Hayward v. Ham, (Mo. App.) 59 S.W.2d 725; Johnston v. Johnston, (N.C.) 213 N.C. 255, 195 S.E. 807; Overton v. Overton, (Okla.) 1926 OK 440, 121 Okla. 1, 246 P. 1095.).
--This action is brought by respondent to recover damages for alienation of affections of her former husband, P. H. Pringle, by appellant. The cause was tried by the court and jury resulting in a verdict in favor of respondent and assessing her damages in the sum of $ 50,000, upon which verdict, judgment was entered, from which this appeal is prosecuted.
The trial court in instruction No. 1, briefly summarized the pertinent allegations contained in the amended complaint of respondent and the answer thereto by appellant as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanchez v. Galey
...the court will reduce the verdict to the amount supported by the evidence making its acceptance optional. Summerfield v. Pringle, 65 Idaho 300, 144 P.2d 214 (1943). Assuming that he read my Howes opinion, Justice Bakes did not see fit to change what he declared to be the law, and, why shoul......
-
Cheney v. Palos Verdes Inv. Corp.
...has been leveled against the use of such evidence of a defendant's wealth. Dissenting opinion of Ailshie, J., in Summerfield v. Pringle [65 Idaho 300, 144 P.2d 214 (1943)] supra; Hodel, 'Exemplary Damages in Oregon,' 44 Ore.L.R. 175, 189-193. These thoughtful warnings may be utilized. Evide......
-
Cox v. Stolworthy
...the issue of punitive damages and therefore a new trial was ordered as to the amount owed as compensatory damages. Summerfield v. Pringle, 65 Idaho 300, 144 P.2d 214 (1943); Williams v. Bone, 74 Idaho 185, 259 P.2d 810 (1953); Driesbach v. Lynch, 74 Idaho 225, 259 P.2d 1039 (1953); and Whit......
-
Massey-Ferguson Credit Corp. v. Peterson
...the courts justified reduction of jury awards by relying on comparisons of actions taken in other courts (See: Summerfield v. Pringle, 65 Idaho 300, at 315-6 (144 P.2d 214)), and without comparison beyond the proposition that the same general category of wrong was involved. Comment on the r......