Case ID: miss_187/html/0602-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "McG-eb.ee, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Randall v. Skinner.
    (Division B.
    Nov. 27, 1939.
    Suggestion of Error Overruled Jan. 8, 1940.)
    [192 So. 341.
    No. 33900.]
    Stevens & Stevens, of Jackson, for appellant.
    
      Hall & Hall, of Columbia, and Gr. M. Milloy, of Prentiss, for appellee.
    
      Argued orally by J. Morgan Stevens, for appellant, and by Lee D. Hall, for appellee.
   McG-eb.ee, J.,

delivered the opinion of tbe court.

Tbe appellee recovered a judgment in tbe circuit court of Marion County against tbe appellant, in tbe sum of $1500, on account of personal injuries sustained in a collision between bis automobile and a passenger bus owned and operated by tbe appellant. On appeal here it is urged that the court below erred (1) in refusing the peremptory instruction requested by tbe appellant, (2) in refusing to instruct tbe jury that tbe plaintiff in no event was entitled to recover for an alleged permanent injury or injuries, and (3) in overruling tbe motion for a new trial on tbe ground (a) that the verdict was contrary to tbe overwhelming weight of tbe evidence, and on tbe ground (b) that tbe verdict was excessive.

Tbe evidence was in conflict as to whether tbe accident was due in whole or in part to tbe fault of tbe appellee or to the fault of tbe driver of the bus, and we deem it unnecessary to review tbe testimony at length in this opinion. It is sufficient to say that we think there is ample evidence to support tbe verdict of tbe jury on tbe issue of fact in that behalf. We are also of the opinion that tbe testimony of tbe appellee and bis physician made an issue for jury as to whether or not tbe injuries sustained by tbe appellee were permanent. We are also unable to say that tbe verdict was contrary to the overwhelming weight of tbe evidence, or that tbe amount thereof is excessive to such an extent as to evince bias, passion or prejudice on tbe part of the jury.

It is further urged, in support of tbe contention that tbe appellant was entitled to tbe peremptory instruction requested, that on tbe day of tbe accident the appellee signed a statement declaring that be alone was at fault and assuming the full responsibility for the accident complained of. The testimony discloses, however, that the appellee declined to sign the first statement presented to him in that behalf, on the ground that it was incorrect, and the testimony is in conflict as to whether he signed the final statement offered in evidence without it being read to him, on the assumption that the errors which he pointed out in the first statement had been corrected. That issue of fact was resolved by the jury in favor of the appellee.

The judgment must therefore be affirmed.

Affirmed.