Va. Ry. & Power Co v. Hill

• Decision Date: 11 January 1917
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: VIRGINIA RY. & POWER CO. v. HILL.

91 S.E. 198

(120 Va. 408)

VIRGINIA RY. & POWER CO.

v.HILL.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Jan. 11, 1917.

Error to Hustings Court of Richmond.

Action by E. Raymond Hill against the Virginia Railway & Power Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

H. W. Anderson, A. B. Guigon, and T. J. Moore, all of Richmond, for plaintiff in error.

Nelson & Nelson, and Gunn & Mathews, all of Richmond, for defendant in error.

KELLY, J. This is a companion case to that of Virginia Railway & Power Company v. Walter C. Hill, 91 S. E. 194, in which an opinion is handed down to-day affirming the judgment complained of. The two cases were, by agreement, tried jointly by the same jury; separate verdicts, however, being returned. In the present case the verdict was for $1,000; and the only question not passed on in the Walter C. Hill Case which we are called upon to decide here is whether the trial court erred in refusing to set aside the verdict on the ground that the amount was excessive.

The plaintiff fell or was thrown from the automobile and received a cut in the face near his eye and an injury to his arm. He said at the trial: "I have pain constantly even from the night of the accident, haven't stopped a minute, from my left eye, and my arm troubles me very often;" also that he continued to have trouble in moving and using his arm, could not carry it straight, could not raise it above his head without pain, and that it seemed to be getting worse. This testimony was given by him more than nine months after the accident. "That we cannot interfere with the verdict as being excessive is perfectly clear under the well-established rule in this state. Richmond Ry. & Elec. Co. v. Garthright, 92 Va. 627, 635, 24 S. E. 267, 32 L. R. A. 220, 53 Am. St. Rep. S39.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Affirmed.