The Hawaiian gazette., 1907-11-19
General Insurance Co. for Sea River
and Land Transport of Dresden.
THE VERD|CTS
WERE TOO LARGE

In the suits of Wakeki Heleluhe
against the Rapid Transit Company and
Kealohapauole against the same, the
Supreme Court in an opinion by Justice
Wilder sustained the order of the Cir
cult Court granting the defendant a
new trial on the ground that the YER
diets were excessive. The statement OF
the case and the reasons for the de-
cision appear in the following.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY
WILDER, J.
"These are actions for damages for
injuries sustained by plaintiffs claimed
TO have been caused by the negligence
of defendant. They were consolidated
and tried together. Plaintiffs were
thrown out of buggy while they were
driving along hing street near Kane
hameha School in consequence of the
buggy being struck by an electric car
of the defendant. After a verdict for
each plaintiff the trial judge granted
defendant S motions for new trials, and
plaintiffs come to this court on exeep-
lions.
THE motions for new trials were
based ON fifteen grounds, only two of
which were referred to by the trial
Judge, namely, that the evidence did
not show that defendant was negligent
and that the verdict in each case was
excessive. The first point TO deter
mine is on what ground the new trials
were granted, which can only be ar
rived at by careful consideration of
all the remarks of the trial judge in
granting the motions. After stating
the two main points for consideration
and making few remarks about sus-
tanning verdicts generally without ref
erence in particular to these cases, he
said:
- Now in this case it seems to me,
although / refused a motion to direct
verdict, and practically the same
facts and the same evidence is now
presented to me again in considering
this motion fora new trial, l am
bound to say that the evidence is not
altogether satisfactory, upon the point
of negligence l mean, and it seems to
me that in both cases the amount
awarded is excessive. There is no per-
manent injury alleged, no permanent
injury claimed. There is no evidence
TO show the value of any services or
that they lost anything in that regard
Whatever he may have meant In
reference TO the evidence as to negh-
genee being unsatisfactory, he did hold
specifically that in both cases the
amount awarded is excessive Further
on in his opinion he said: In view of
all the facts and all the circumstances
l am bound to say that the amount
awarded by the jury is excessive and
later he twice referred to the fact that
each verdict was excessive. For this
court to hold that he did not mean
what he said would be trifing and do
ing away with the ordinary meaning
of words.
"The verdicts were $4,000 for plain
tiff Heleluhe and $500 for plaintiff
Kealohapauole. Each plaintiff was over
sixty years of age. Neither plaintiff
alleged or claimed any permanent in
Jury. Plaintiff Heleluhe received
broken collar bone and several bruises
about the body and had little use Of
her left arm, was confined in bed about
a couple of weeks, and it was six or
eight weeks before the bandages were
The injuries TO the plain
tiff Kealohapauole consisted of the dis
location of her left shoulder joint and
several bruises on different parts of
the body and caused her TO remain in
bed for about a couple of weeks. Each
plaintiff suffered good deal of pain
and more or less of a shock from the
injuries, and each incurred q bill for
medical attendance of about S175.
Neither one lost the value of any
wages or earnings while recovering from
the injuries. The horse and buggy in
which plaintiffs were driving at thei
time of the accident belonged to the
queen.
.'On the whole. we can not say as
a matter of law that the trial judge
abused his discretion IN granting new
trials on the ground that the verdicts
were excessive, although we might not
have found that the verdicts were ex-
eessive if that was the question be-
fore us.