Wise v. Monteros, 6920
Decision Date | 27 February 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 6920,6920 |
Citation | 93 Ariz. 124,379 P.2d 116 |
Parties | George WISE, Appellant, v. Armando MONTEROS, Appellee. |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Nasib Karam, Nogales, for appellant.
Bird & Haythornewhite, Nogales, for appellee.
Appellant was defendant in an assault and battery action. Plaintiff received a verdict and judgment for $8,000, from which defendant appeals and asks for a new trial.
Plaintiff was a night clerk in the Montezuma Hotel in Nogales and defendant was a regular customer at the hotel. They had been quarreling for some time and the testimony is conflicting as to the background of the animosity. Defendant claimed that plaintiff would call him at odd hours of the night to awaken him, but plaintiff claimed that defendant was angry because plaintiff had once forgotten to call him in the morning. There is agreement that plaintiff called defendant's room on the night of the fight. Plaintiff claims the call was a mistake and defendant though it was on purpose. In any event, defendant left his room and went downstairs to fight with plaintiff.
Although plaintiff's special damages were approximately $400 the jury fixed actual damages at $8,000 and gave no punitive damages. There was testimony from which the jury could have found that the plaintiff had pain and had suffered and testimony from which the jury could have found that there was some permanent injury.
At the trial, a doctor to whom plaintiff had gone six or seven weeks after the incident testified to plaintiff's statements as to the manner in which the injuries occurred. This testimony was objected to by defendant.
Defendant complains that the ratio of the amount of the verdict to the actual damages is such as to show that the verdict was the result of passion and prejudice on the part of the jury. The amount of damages for personal injuries is a question peculiarly within the province of the jury, Phillips v. Stillwell, 55 Ariz. 147, 99 P.2d 104. There was evidence in this case from which the jury could have awarded damages for pain and suffering. The testimony shows that during the fight the plaintiff was hit in the eye and kicked in the scrotum. There was testimony from which the jury could have found that the plaintiff had suffered some permanent injuries 1 and we cannot say that the amount of the verdict was excessive as to show that the jury arrived at it as a result of passion and prejudice.
Defendant also complains that certain testimony by Doctor Carlson was improperly admitted. The testimony was:
Defendant claims that the testimony of the doctor as to statements...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Goldstein v. Sklar
...extent of the plaintiff's injury. In this, there was no error. Lowery v. Jones, 219 Ala. 201, 121 So. 704, 64 A.L.R. 553; Wise v. Monteros, 93 Ariz. 124, 379 P.2d 116; Davis v. Renton, 113 Cal.App. 561, 298 P. 834; Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Davis, 48 Ga.App. 742, 173 S.E. 471; Car......
-
Hospital Underwriting Group, Inc. v. Summit Health Ltd.
...with the trial court. Frontier Motors, Inc. v. Horrall, 17 Ariz.App. 198, 200, 496 P.2d 624, 626 (1972) (citing Wise v. Monteros, 93 Ariz. 124, 379 P.2d 116 (1963); Allied Van Lines v. Parsons, 80 Ariz. 88, 293 P.2d 430 (1956)). After the Arizona jury rendered its verdict and judgment had b......
-
Simpson v. Heiderich
...the history given him by the patient as a non-hearsay use. State v. Griffin, 99 Ariz. 43, 49, 406 P.2d 397 (1965) 1; Wise v. Monteros, 93 Ariz. 124, 126, 379 P.2d 116 (1963); See also: Reid v. Quebec Paper Sales & Transportation Co., 340 F.2d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1965); Johnson v. Aetna Life Ins......
-
Larriva v. Widmer
...jury, and such award will not be overturned or tampered with unless the verdict was the result of passion and prejudice. Wise v. Monteros, 93 Ariz. 124, 379 P.2d 116, Young Candy & Tobacco Company v. Montoya, 91 Ariz. 363, 372 P.2d 703, Keen v. Clarkson, 56 Ariz. 437, 108 P.2d 573. As we st......