Veitch v. Southern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 January 1930
• Docket Number: 2 Div. 940.
• Citation: 126 So. 845,220 Ala. 436
• Parties: VEITCH v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

126 So. 845

220 Ala. 436

VEITCH v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.

2 Div. 940.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 16, 1930

Appeal from Circuit Court, Perry County; Thomas E. Knight, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Carlos Veitch against the Southern Railway Company. From a judgment granting defendant's motion for a new trial, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Hobbs Craig & Brown, of Selma, for appellant.

Clifton C. Johnston, of Marion, and Pettus & Fuller and W. E. Callen Jr., all of Selma, for appellee.

FOSTER J.

This is an action on the case for negligence in transporting the remains of the deceased husband of appellant from Uniontown to Birmingham. There was a verdict for plaintiff fixing her damages. Defendant moved for a new trial because the amount of the damages was excessive. The court concluded that the amount was excessive and, upon a refusal of plaintiff to remit the excess, granted the motion, and plaintiff appealed. The judge filed an opinion along with the judgment. He states that to justify a reduction in the amount of damages "it is not necessary that the amount allowed should be so excessive as to force the conclusion that the jury was influenced by bias, passion or prejudice." We think that the above statement is not altogether in harmony with our decisions.

The following statement of the rule has been approved many times by this court: "Damages for physical pain and mental anguish are in large measure discretionary, and the universal rule is not to reverse on that account unless the amount is so excessive or inadequate as to indicate prejudice passion, partiality, or corruption," or some other controlling sentiment. Whitman's Fifth Ave. Garage Co. v. Ricks, 211 Ala. 527, 101 So. 53, 55; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Robinson, 213 Ala. 522, 105 So. 874; Cent. of Ga. Rwy. Co. v. White, 175 Ala. 60, 56 So. 574; Montgomery Lt. & Traction Co. v. King, 187 Ala. 619, 65 So. 998, L. R. A. 1915F, 491, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 449; M. & O. R. Co. v. Brassell, 188 Ala. 349, 66 So. 447; Miller v. So. Bell Tel. Co., 195 Ala. 408, 70 So. 730; B'ham Water Works Co. v. Watley, 192 Ala. 520, 68 So. 330; B'ham Macaroni Co. v. Tadrick, 205 Ala. 540, 88 So. 858.

In our recent case of White v. Thorington, 219 Ala. 101, 120 So. 914, 916, this court ordered the amount reduced, and stated that it is a case "which naturally aroused the sympathy and passion of the jury."

We do not understand this rule to require that the jury must have been consciously controlled by such sentiments, or that there was any corruption in the finding. It is said in the case of Southern Ry. Co. v. Dickson, 211 Ala. 481, 100 So 665, 672: "No doubt the jury were overwhelmed with a feeling of horror and sympathy, and undertook to compensate him on the basis of what a sound man might be willing to undergo his injuries and endure his sufferings for. Courts, however, must deal with such cases in a practical rather than in a *** sympathetic way." So that we take it that the rule as stated means that the jury must not be overcome by horror or sympathy, or any other sentiment. Of course, every person feels a strong sentiment of sympathy on occasions which...