Yarrough v. Hines

• Decision Date: 01 September 1920
• Docket Number: 15868.
• Citation: 192 P. 886,112 Wash. 310
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: YARROUGH v. HINES.

192 P. 886

112 Wash. 310

YARROUGH v. HINES.

No. 15868.

Supreme Court of Washington

September 1, 1920

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; David M. Hurn, Judge.

Action by Eli Yarrough against Walker D. Hines. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Geo. W Korte, of Seattle, and Lee & Kimball, of Spokane, for appellant.

Robertson Miller & Robertson, of Spokane, for respondent.

BRIDGES J.

Action by respondent to recover damages for personal injuries received while in the employ of the appellant. The jury awarded respondent $5,500. The trial court at the time of the argument of appellant's motion for new trial intimated he would grant such motion unless the respondent would consent to a reduction of the verdict to $3,250. He thereafter filed in the cause his remittance in the sum of $2,250 and consented to a judgment in his favor of $3,250. Judgment was accordingly entered for this amount. The defendant has appealed.

The appellant seems to concede that the testimony was of such character as to require the case to be submitted to the jury. It does not here complain of any errors of the court during the progress of the trial, but does contend that, inasmuch as the court found and determined that the verdict was excessive, it should have granted a new trial, and had no authority to require the respondent to remit a part of the verdict, or to make judgment against it for the reduced amount. It admits that the trial court followed the practice in this state and that such practice has been approved by this court. It argues that each of the parties to the action is entitled to have the matter of damages determined by a jury, and not by the court, and asks this court to recede from its former holdings.

Whatever may be the rule in other states, the practice in this jurisdiction has been settled for so long a period that we do not consider it necessary to now review the cases out of this court. We have uniformly held that the trial court has power to refuse to grant a new trial on condition that the plaintiff will voluntarily remit a portion of the verdict in his favor. An extensive examination of the authorities convinces us that on this question our former rulings are supported by the courts of most of the states, as well as the Supreme Court of the United States. This identical question has been before us a great many times during the past 25 years, and our ruling has always been the same. The following is a partial list of the cases from this court deciding the question contrary to the appellant's contention Winter v. Shoudy, 9 Wash. 52, 36 P. 1049; McDonough v. Great Northern Railway, 15 Wash. 244, 46 P. 334; Hughes v. Dexter Horton & Co., 26 Wash. 110, 66 P. 109; Bailey v. Cascade Timber Co., 35 Wash. 295, 77 P. 377; Wait v. Robertson Mtg. Co., 37 Wash. 282, 79 P. 926; McOwen v. Seattle Electric Co., 48 Wash. 362, 93 P. 518; Matsuda v. Hammond, 77 Wash. 120, 137 P. 328, 51 L. R. A. (N. S.) 920. A further examination of the question convinces us that those cases were properly decided. The reasons and grounds for the practice are well stated in the case of Arkansas Valley Land, etc., v. Mann, 130 U.S. 69, 9 S.Ct. 458, 32 L.Ed. 854; Northern Pacific Ry. v. Herbert, 116 U.S. 642, 6 S.Ct. 590, 29 L.Ed. 755. A valuable note on the subject will be found in 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1064 et seq.

But the appellant contends that the amount of respondent's recovery is still excessive and on that account it should be granted a new trial...