Opinion ID: 2440832
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: appeal of plaintiff hager odom

Text: This Court filed an opinion in this case May 1, 1973, which was withdrawn on our own motion after it was called to our attention that we did not discuss the assignments of error of Mr. Odom. This has been a difficult case. We have had many conferences and more than one proposed opinion has been drafted. The cover sheet of one of the earlier drafts was inadvertently placed on the opinion filed May 1, 1973. Plaintiff Odom insists that not only should the $95,000.00 remittitur suggested by the Trial Judge be restored but that this court should also make an additur which the Trial Judge refused to make. This Court does not have authority to make an additur where the Trial Judge refused to make one. Loftis v. Finch (1973), Tenn. App., 491 S.W.2d 370. This Court does have authority to reinstate all or part of the remittitur suggested by the Trial Judge. Murphy Truck Lines v. Brown, 203 Tenn. 414, 313 S.W.2d 440. Plaintiff's damages cannot be evaluated as closely as damages for personal injuries. He will suffer embarrassment and humiliation for the remainder of his life. We hold that the remittitur suggested by His Honor the Trial Judge was too much and $25,000.00 thereof should be restored. Judgment will be entered for plaintiff for $150,000.00 with interest from date of trial below. The costs will be taxed against the defendants. MATHERNE and NEARN, JJ., concur.