Case Title: Snyder v. Amermann, Jr.

Citation: 194 Or. 675, 243 P.2d 1082

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1952-04-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
Affirmed as modified April 30, 1952.
*676 C.S. Emmons argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Willis, Kyle & Emmons, of Albany.
Windsor Calkins argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Calkins & Calkins, of Eugene.
Before HAY, Acting Chief Justice, and LUSK, LATOURETTE and TOOZE, Justices.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
LATOURETTE, J.
This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment in her favor in the sum of $532. In her complaint she complains that on the 27th day of October, 1950, at about 7 p.m., she was walking in a pedestrian lane across Thirteenth avenue in the city of Eugene when defendant negligently drove his automobile into her, *677 throwing her some 15 feet into the air and against the curb of said avenue, causing her to sustain injuries and damages. She alleges that she sustained "severe and painful bruises and contusions in the region of her lower ribs and on the left hip and sustained a severe wrenching and spraining of the muscles, tendons, ligaments of the left hip, and sustained severe bruises, contusions and sprains to the muscles, tendons and ligaments of her lower back, and was severely shocked, and that the sprain of plaintiff's lower back and hip will result in a permanent injury to her, all to her damage in the sum of $8500.00."
She further alleges that as a result of her injuries she was compelled to employ physicians, undergo hospital care and treatment and be transported by ambulance. She also claims that she lost earnings by reason of such accident. Her prayer for damages is for the total amount of her general damages and the special damages hereinabove referred to, in a specified sum.
Defendant in his answer admits that there was a collision between his automobile and the plaintiff at the time and place indicated, but denies the remainder of the complaint. He then charges by separate answer and defense contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, which is denied by plaintiff in her reply.
After a trial was had before a jury, the jury brought in the following verdict which totaled to the penny the special damages submitted by the court to the jury:
*678 Plaintiff moved for a new trial, one of her grounds being as follows:
The trial court denied the motion for a new trial and entered judgment on the verdict; hence this appeal.
1. Error is assigned in this court for the failure of the trial court to grant a new trial. The question posed is whether or not the verdict entered by the jury was a verdict for general damages or a verdict for special damages. If a verdict for general damages, of course there is no error. If a verdict for special damages, it cannot stand because, under the well-recognized rule of law, before a verdict for special damages may be entered in a case of this kind, there must be a general verdict. The trial court instructed the jury in regard to damages as follows:
It will be seen that the verdict of $532 totals the loss of wages and the hospital, ambulance and doctor bills. The evidence is uncontradicted that the plaintiff was out of pocket the $532 claimed as special damages, and there is no argument in the brief to the contrary. All defendant has to say on this point in his brief follows:
From the above, it is evident that the defendant diagnosed the jury's verdict as one for special damages. It is said that the jury thought that plaintiff "received superficial bruises", and that her nervousness was due "to an affirmity common to women of her age."
2. It is our opinion that the verdict rendered by the jury was a verdict for special and not general damages. The verdict finds for the plaintiff and assesses the damages in the sum of $532, the exact amount of the special damages claimed, proved and undenied.
3. "We * * * find for * * * Plaintiff", standing alone, simply means that the issues, other than damages, have been resolved in favor of plaintiff, but *680 could not be considered as a verdict for general damages because it would not have legal efficacy, lacking in a damage finding. That part of the verdict reading, "and assess the amount to be recovered in the sum of $532.00.", identifies the verdict as one for special damages since the amount is identical with the claims of plaintiff for special damages. It is, therefore, clear that the jury intended the verdict to be one for special damages.
In the case of Hall v. Cornett, 193 Or. 634, 240 P2d 231, the jury at first returned a verdict into court for $1 general damages and the further sum of $1,006.40 for special damages. The court sent the jury back with instructions that if the jury found for plaintiff she was entitled to reasonable compensation for her damages rather than a nominal amount. The jury returned a second verdict which was for $300 general damages and $707.40 special damages, being the aggregate amount of the damages awarded on the first verdict. The trial court set aside the verdict for the misconduct of the jury. We affirmed. The principle involved in that case and in the instant case is the same, although the modus operandi is different. We believe, therefore, that the jury, in disregarding the court's instructions, was guilty of misconduct, and that the court erred in not granting plaintiff a new trial.
Ordinarily, in a case of this kind, it should be sent back for a retrial where error is found. In the present case, the questions of negligence, contributory negligence, proximate cause and special damages have been resolved by the jury adversely to the defendant so that there remains only the question of the amount of general damages to be adjudicated.
*681 4. In the case at bar, the accident happened in October, 1950, the complaint was filed on December 20, 1950, and the judgment was entered in March, 1951. If the matter were sent back for retrial, another year or more could pass before the termination of the law suit. In order to facilitate the disposal of the cause and to prevent costs and disbursements which would result from the second trial (Wright v. Wimberly, 94 Or 1, 16, 184 P 740; Knight v. Beyers, 70 Or 413, 418, 134 P 787), we are disposed to terminate the matter in this court under Article VII, § 3, of the Oregon constitution, the provision applicable being as follows:
We have the entire record here, including the transcript of testimony, and we are of the opinion that from the record it can be determined what judgment should have been entered in the court below.
5. We have held on numerous occasions, beginning with Hoag v. Washington-Oregon Corp., 75 Or 588, 144 P 574, 147 P 756, that, under Article VII, § 3 of the constitution, where error has been committed in the lower court, all elements being present, we have the authority to reduce verdicts where the record warrants it and have exercised such authority. We likewise have authority to increase verdicts since we try the case under such constitutional provision, when the *682 situation is appropriate, de novo on the record as a suit in equity.
The uncontradicted evidence shows that as a result of the collision plaintiff was thrown into the air, "sat down awfully hard.", and then "rolled about four or five times," and finally came to rest in the gutter. She was "dizzy-headed" and was taken to the hospital by ambulance. A doctor was called who cared for her at the hospital where she remained five days. She had a hard time walking and had no sense of equilibrium because her side and back hurt so much that she could not walk. She suffered pain in her left hip and the lower part of her back. She was unable to sleep, even up to the time of the trial. The pain also persisted until then. She also had pain at her waistline and suffered nervousness. She returned to work several weeks after the accident but could not hold down her job because she had "just a sort of a collapse,". She would "shake and cry" and could not get "control" of herself. She was unable to continue her work and had to cease. She was required to take medicine to relieve the pain up to the time of the trial. When sitting in a chair, she would get so stiff that it was "just almost an impossibility for her to get up out of a chair." Her condition remained practically the same up to the time of the trial. The size of her hip, where injured, was reduced about two-and-one-half inches.
Plaintiff's physician, Dr. Endicott, who had given plaintiff a complete physical examination prior to the accident, testified that plaintiff had a low back strain, a large bruise over her hip joint, and "definite tenderness over the left hip joint, and resistance to motion in the left hip joint because of pain." His *683 diagnosis was "an acute sprain of the hip, and residuals of pain, and with the possibility of chronic hip pain development." Dr. Endicott examined plaintiff shortly before the trial and as to the result of his examination testified:
*684 Patricia Snyder, plaintiff's daughter, testified as to plaintiff's condition after the accident and, in the main, corroborated her mother. She told of the bruises on her body, about her nervousness, her inability to sleep, of her complaints, and of the treatments plaintiff underwent for the relief of pain.
Defendant's witness, Dr. Brooke, examined plaintiff and testified:
6. We are of the opinion that $2,500 would reasonably compensate plaintiff for the injuries suffered by reason of the accident. Judgment will be entered in favor of plaintiff against the defendant for $2,500 general damages and $532 special damages.