Opinion ID: 1790173
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Verdict Against Morris Rabren

Text: Finally, Trustee argues that the verdict in his favor against Morris Rabren in the amount of $15,000 is wholly inadequate and that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for new trial on this ground. The basic reason for disturbing a jury verdict because of inadequate damages is the same as stated previously regarding verdicts contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. Allen v. Harper, 277 Ala. 691, 174 So.2d 331 (1965); Yarbrough v. Mallory, 225 Ala. 579, 144 So. 447 (1932). After allowing all presumptions in favor of its correctness, we are convinced that the evidence against the verdict is so decided as to clearly convince us that it is wrong and unjust. We have been unable to find any evidence in the record to support the award of $15,000 damages against Rabren. All the evidence clearly points toward an award substantially greater than this amount. Much of the evidence relating to the amount of loss suffered by Covington Grain is undisputedeven by Rabren himself. The jury cannot disregard the testimony of competent witnesses and substitute its own conclusion for undisputed evidence. Farmers & Ginner's Cotton Oil Co. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 341 So.2d 147 (Ala.1976). For the foregoing reasons, this cause is due to be affirmed as to appellees McDonald, Johnson and Jefferies and reversed and remanded as to appellee Rabren. AFFIRMED IN PART. REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. TORBERT, C. J., and FAULKNER, ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.