Opinion ID: 1686684
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: actual and punitive damages awarded by the lower court were excessive.

Text: Appellants contend that there was no competent medical proof of pain and suffering and that the court erred in awarding damages based on the testimony of the appellee's psychiatrist. The appellee and lay witnesses testified extensively about the pain and suffering which appellee has experienced. Dr. Jay W. Seastrunk, an eminently qualified psychiatrist, testified at length that appellee was suffering from a major depression; chronic post-traumatic stress syndrome; that he placed appellee on anti-depression medication; that appellee has a real injury to the mind and the body; that he is permanently affected by the shooting incident; that he is in need of continuing neuroleptic treatment in the future; and that from his examination of appellee's left thigh, he determined that there were changes in circulation. The record reflects that appellee sustained permanent injuries in mind and body and that he would continue to experience pain and suffering. Evidence for the appellee indicated that he was unable to maintain an athletic football scholarship due to his injuries, and that his special damages, including present and future medical bills and treatment, amounted to ten thousand five hundred thirty dollars ($10,530). [1] In Ross & Co., Inc. v. McWhirter, 216 Miss. 568, 63 So.2d 38 (1953), the jury returned a verdict for three thousand dollars ($3,000), which was affirmed for twenty-two hundred fifty dollars ($2,250). The Court said: But the defendant further contends, as set forth in his motion for a new trial, that the verdict is grossly excessive as to actual damages to the automobile and to the person of the plaintiff. The testimony disclosed a cost of $280.15 for the repair of the automobile, and further disclosed that the plaintiff did not receive any bruise, cut or other injury to his person than the resulting nervousness that was occasioned by reason of the collision. He was a graduate student at Mississippi State College, alongside the campus of which the highway ran on which the collision occurred. We are impressed that he endeavored to truthfully state the extent of his injuries, and without exaggeration. He did not lose a day from school on account of the accident, did not consult a physician until a few weeks thereafter, and incurred no medical or hospital expense. He does not claim that any lameness resulted to him on account of the accident, or that he had suffered any pain other than the discomfort of nervousness, but did claim that he had been unable to make as good grades as a student following the accident as he was able to make prior thereto. The physician who examined him at the time above stated was of the opinion that he was extremely nervous and that from the history of the case this condition was the proximate result of the accident. He testified as a witness that the nervousness may last for several weeks longer after the trial, and it appears that a period of a few months had intervened between the date of the accident and the time of the trial. 216 Miss. at 663, 63 So.2d at 38-39. We are of the opinion that there is no merit in Assignments II  III. Appellant contends that there was no competent evidence of the appellant's net worth and that the court erred in granting punitive damages. The record reflects appellant's net worth as follows: (1) 220 acres in Stone County valued and offered for sale by appellant at $334,000 (2) Appellant owes no one any money (3) 1978 Chevrolet pickup (4) A few pieces of farm equipment (5) Prior to the suit, a joint savings account which contains $7,000 to $10,000 Cobb contends that the actual and punitive damages awarded by the lower court are excessive. In Morton Broiler Farms, Inc. v. Morgan, 191 So.2d 137 (Miss. 1966), Mrs. Morgan's injuries consisted of a cut on the forehead, leaving a scar, traumatic bursitis, and loss of nerve in the frontal temporal area of the head, as a result of an automobile collision. The Court said, in affirming an award of twenty-four thousand dollars ($24,000): Had we been on the jury, very likely none of us would have voted for so large a verdict. However, that fact cannot control us here. The amount of the verdict is within the province of the jury and we should not interfere therewith unless and until the amount thereof comes within the rules laid down heretofore for the entry of remittiturs. While this verdict is liberal, we do not consider it as requiring a remittitur, and the case is affirmed. 191 So.2d at 139. See jury verdicts affirmed in Edwards v. Ellis, 478 So.2d 282 (Miss. 1985) ($80,000); Jesco, Inc. v. Shannon, 451 So.2d 694 (Miss. 1984) ($1,024,268); Bulk Transport, Inc. v. Smith, 274 So.2d 683 (Miss. 1973) ($40,000); New Orleans and Northwestern Railroad Co. v. Weary, 217 So.2d 274 (Miss. 1969) ($50,000). We are of the opinion that the lower court was not manifestly wrong in awarding actual and punitive damages in the amount of $92,716.93, and that the judgment of the lower court should be sustained.