Taylor v. Bennett, 14132
| Decision Date | 07 October 1963 |
| Docket Number | 14133.,No. 14132,14132 |
| Parties | Margaret TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alvin C. BENNETT and L. C. Bennett, Defendants-Appellees. Margaret TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. L. C. BENNETT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
L. Louis Karton, Chicago, Ill., Robert J. Joling, Kenosha, Wis., Jack L. Sachs, Chicago, Ill., for Taylor.
Robert O. Duffy, Chicago, Ill., Beverly & Pause, Chicago, Ill., Robert O. Duffy, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for defendants-appellees and for separate appellant.
Before SCHNACKENBERG, CASTLE, and SWYGERT, Circuit Judges.
Margaret Taylor brought this diversity action against Alvin C. Bennett, a minor, and his father, L. C. Bennett, to recover damages for injuries alleged to have resulted from the negligence of Alvin C. Bennett in driving an automobile that struck the rear of the car in which plaintiff was a passenger. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff against both defendants and assessed her damages at $6,000, upon which the district court entered judgment.
Plaintiff has appealed on the grounds that the district court erred in refusing to grant her motion for a new trial because of gross inadequacy of the verdict and in refusing to permit the use of anatomical charts to aid a medical witness in explaining plaintiff's injuries. Defendant L. C. Bennett has cross-appealed, asserting the court erred in refusing to grant his motion for a directed verdict.
The significant facts are summarized below. Plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile owned and operated by Mary Nefzger on January 23, 1959. The car had stopped at a stop sign at the intersection of Illinois state routes 173 and 131 when it was struck in the rear by a car owned by L. C. Bennett and driven by defendant Alvin C. Bennett, his seventeen year old son.
The impact pushed the Nefzger car into the intersection. Plaintiff testified that her body was snapped back and forth and her neck snapped back. There was a slight dent on the rear bumper of the Nefzger car which cost $28.00 to repair. The deputy sheriff testified that he saw no sign of injury at the scene of the accident. He did note, however, that plaintiff complained of pain. After the police left, the Nefzger car proceeded to Zion, Illinois, where plaintiff and the other passengers in the car were employed. Plaintiff worked a few hours when she complained of a swollen neck and pain. She left work. The next day she saw her family physician who treated her for pain in her neck. There is evidence that she also complained of pain in the low back but the doctor noted in his report that at least part of the low back pain existed prior to the accident.
On February 14, 1959, plaintiff entered the Kenosha hospital where she was treated by Dr. Sattler, an orthopedic surgeon. It was his diagnosis that she sustained a whiplash injury to her neck and a low back strain. She remained in the hospital until March 4, 1959. Dr. Sattler continued to treat her at home. She returned to work in November for approximately three weeks but was unable to continue working because of pain.
She was involved in a "minor" traffic accident in November of 1959, scraping a fender of her car.
On November 29, 1959, she returned to Kenosha hospital and a spine fusion operation was performed. She was released on January 4, 1960.
She returned to work October 1, 1960. At the time of the trial she had no pain in the neck or cervical spine but she still complained of pain in the small of the back. Plaintiff testified that before the accident she was physically active and had no trouble with her back. She had an operation in 1958 for female trouble which had caused pain in the lower abdomen but no back ache.
Dr. Schlenker, an orthopedic surgeon, who examined plaintiff in February, 1960 and again in November, 1962 testified that it was his opinion that plaintiff still had residual low back pains and that the accident in January, 1959 was a "competent producing cause of the lumbar spine injuries."
Plaintiff contends that the $6,000 verdict awarded by the jury should be set aside and a new trial granted because the amount does not equal the proven damages and does not meet the legal requirement of adequacy. Plaintiff introduced medical and hospital bills totaling $2,067. She estimated that her loss of earnings for this period was $6,341.20. Plaintiff claims that the verdict did not allow for "lost wages and specials" or for permanent pain and suffering.
Appellate courts will review the adequacy of damages only in cases where the jury awards nominal damages, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Semper v. Santos
...amount " 'substantially less than was unquestionably proven by plaintiff's uncontradicted and undisputed evidence.' " Taylor v. Bennett, 323 F.2d 607, 609 (7th Cir.1963) (quoting Schaeper v. Edwards, 306 F.2d 175, 177 (6th Cir.1962)); see also Tann v. Service Distributors, Inc., 56 F.R.D. 5......
-
Prime Choice Servs., Inc. v. Schneider Logistics Transloading & Distribution, Inc., Case No. 13-C-1435
...court." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1). An inadequate jury verdict is an appropriate ground on which to order a new trial. Taylor v. Bennett, 323 F.2d 607, 609 (7th Cir. 1963). "'Rule 59 gives the trial judge ample power to prevent what he considers to be a miscarriage of justice. It is his right......
-
Pike v. Premier Transp. & Warehousing, Inc.
...present case, the main dispute—whether the accident caused Mr. Pike's injuries—is a fact question for the jury. See Taylor v. Bennett, 323 F.2d 607, 609 (7th Cir. 1963) ("It is clear from the record that the question whether the January, 1959 accident was the cause of injury to plaintiff's ......
-
Hammarskjold v. Fountain Powerboats, Civ. A. No. 90-6566.
...an amount `substantially less than was unquestionably proven by plaintiff's uncontradicted and undisputed evidence'." Taylor v. Bennett, 323 F.2d 607, 609 (7th Cir.1963) (quoting Schaeper v. Edwards, 306 F.2d 175, 177 (6th Cir.1962) "or if the award is so unreasonable as to shock the consci......