Title: Walker v. Henderson

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

156 So. 2d 633 (1963)
James B. WALKER, Jr., pro aml,
v.
Mrs. Guy HENDERSON.
5 Div. 765.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 26, 1963.
*634 Hooton & Hooton, Roanoke, and Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, Birmingham, for appellant.
Knox, Jones, Woolf & Merrill, Anniston, for appellee.
HARWOOD, Justice.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff below from an order overruling plaintiff's motion for a new trial because of inadequacy of the damages assessed.
The suit below sought damages because of the alleged negligence of the defendant in driving a car into a horse being ridden by the plaintiff on a public road.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and assessed his damages at $2,000, and judgment was entered pursuant to the verdict.
The verdict and judgment being in favor of the plaintiff, the only question involved in this appeal is the action of the lower court denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial because of the inadequacy of the damages. This being so, we will set forth only so much of the evidence as touches upon the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries.
The plaintiff was seventeen years of age at the time of the accident. Upon being taken to the Randolph County Hospital, he was attended by Dr. G. C. Ussery, whose qualifications as a physician and surgeon were admitted.
Dr. Ussery testified that when he first saw the plaintiff in the emergency room at the hospital, his blood pressure was 90/8, and he had a mild cerebral concussion. As to the injuries found by Dr. Ussery, we excerpt the following from Dr. Ussery's testimony:
The doctor further testified that the plaintiff would suffer pain from his injuries, some days the pain might be light and on other days it might be severe.
In the doctor's opinion the injuries to the plaintiff are permanent, and there has been no improvement in the past twelve months. In fact, the plaintiff's condition is worse now than it was twelve months ago. In addition to Dr. Ussery, the plaintiff has been seen by Drs. Fagan and Taylor in Anniston, Dr. Agouri of Columbus, Georgia, and Dr. Galbraith in Birmingham, and by Dr. Norred, a Chiropractor.
As to his physical condition and suffering since his injuries, the plaintiff testified as follows:
Mr. Walker, father of the plaintiff, testified that before the accident the plaintiff drove a school bus as a substitute driver, but since the accident "he can't hardly get about" and "hasn's done a thing." We note here that no evidence was introduced tending to show the plaintiff's earnings, if any, as a substitute school bus driver, though M. B. Wallace, Superintendent of Schools for the City of Roanoke, testified that the plaintiff drove a school bus "quite a bit."
The plaintiff's original hospitalization was for 16 days. Subsequent stays in the hospital were necessary, and altogether the plaintiff has spent some 63 days in the hospital because of his injuries.
In addition the plaintiff has had to visit Dr. Ussery some 16 times, has made five trips to Anniston and Birmingham, and two trips to Columbus, Georgia, for medical consultation. The costs of these trips were not shown, the plaintiff testifying he did not know what his traveling expenses were.
The plaintiff's hospital and medical bills at the time of trial totaled $1,656.31. Subtracting *636 this out of pocket money from the $2,000 assessed as damages, leaves $343.69 as the amount of damages assessed for the injuries, permanent physical impairment and pain and suffering.
Section 276, Title 7, Code of Alabama 1940, provides that motions for new trials may be granted because of excessive or inadequate damages.
The power of trial courts to set aside verdicts, while inherent in order to prevent irreparable injustice, is a power hesitantly exercised because of the solemnity of a jury verdict regarded in background of that most precious of rights, the right of trial by jury. "The power should be exercised only when it affirmatively appears that the substantial ends of justice require the examination of the facts by another jury." Cobb v. Malone, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738.
The rule is strengthened in the presumption accorded the correctness of a verdict when the presiding judge denies a new trial. Cobb v. Malone, supra.
These rules are not inflexible, and this inflexibility but illustrates the well remembered admonition of the late and beloved Dean Albert J. Farrah, stated repeatedly in almost every lecture, that "Out of facts the law arises."
In reversing a judgment of the lower court denying a motion for a new trial because of the inadequacy of the damages, the late Justice Bouldin, in Yarbrough v. Mallory, 225 Ala. 579, 144 So. 447, wrote:
The facts of the present case place it within the influence of the Yarbrough case.
The undisputed evidence shows that the plaintiff sustained severe and substantial injuries. Sixty-three days of hospitalization have already been required. The muscles and nerves of his right leg have been damaged to the extent that the right leg has atrophied. Flexion has been lost in the leg to the extent that the plaintiff *637 must wear an iron brace. He walks with a limp. This condition is permanent and, according to Dr. Ussery, has grown worse. The only reasonable inference from the evidence is that the plaintiff has endured great and severe pain from physical damage apparent to the eye. According to Dr. Ussery his symptoms are classical to the conditions present. There can be no question of feigning. He has been unable to work since the accident.
To conclude that the sum of $343.69 adequately compensated the plaintiff is to ignore the inadequacy inherent in the award when measured by the extent of the injuries inflicted, the extent of such injuries being shown by undisputed evidence.
Reversed and remanded.
LAWSON, GOODWYN and MERRILL, JJ., concur.