Opinion ID: 1899923
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: 926 The Granting of New Trials.

Text: The district court granted new trials on the grounds that the verdicts were influenced by passion and prejudice. The plaintiff claims the court abused his discretion in so doing. The court has power to grant a new trial for excessive damages only if it appears that the verdict was given under the influence of passion and prejudice. Sub. Sec. 5, Sec. 28-1902, NDRC 1943. A verdict will not be disturbed on that ground unless the amount of damages is obviously so disproportionate to the injury as to justify the conclusion that the verdict is not the result of the cool and dispassionate judgment of the jury. This court in Umphrey v. Deery, 78 N.D. 211, 219, 245, 48 N.W.2d 897, 915, says: In actions for damages for wrongful death the jury is vested with a large discretion in fixing the amount of damages. 25 C.J.S., Death, § 115, p. 1265; 5 Sutherland on Damages, 4th ed., pp. 4892-4894, and while the discretion of the jury in such cases is subject to the supervision of the court, a verdict may be interfered with on the ground of excess only where it is manifest that the amount awarded is not within the evidence and was influenced by passion or prejudice. NDRC 1943, 28-1902; Whaley v. Vidal, 27 S.D. 642, 132 N.W. 248; Whaley v. Vidal, 27 S.D. 627, 132 N.W. 242; 25 C.J.S., Death, §§ 115, 116, pages 1266-1267. The burden is on the party seeking a new trial to show effectively and satisfactorily that the verdict is excessive and to what extent. The amount, so it is said, must appear to be unreasonable or outrageous, or such as to manifest, on the part of the jury, mistake, misapprehension of duty, or misconduct, indicating that they were influenced by passion and prejudice. 39 Am.Jur. New Trial, § 144, p. 150. In order to justify the granting of a new trial on the ground that the amount of the verdict is excessive, the fact that the award is excessive must be plain or evident. It is not sufficient for the party seeking a new trial merely to raise a doubt as to whether the damages are too large, he must show affirmatively and satisfactorily, that they are so and to what extent. The amount, so it is said, must appear to be unreasonable or outrageous, or such as to manifest, on the part of the jury, mistake, misapprehension of duty, or misconduct, indicating that they were influenced by passion or prejudice. 30 Am.Jur. § 144, p. 150. Only where the award appears to be unconscionable or clearly not warranted by the record, should the judgment of the jury, in such matters, be disturbed. Dunham v. Des Moines Ry. Co., 240 Iowa, 421, 35 N.W.2d 578, 583, 584. What warrants setting aside a verdict? The formula which has been most frequently used is to the effect that to warrant interference the verdict must be so flagrantly outrageous and extravagantly excessive as to appear, at first blush, to have been given under the influence of passion, prejudice or corruption. See Brown v. Beck, 63 Cal.App. 686, 220 P. 14; Weaver v. Shell Oil Co., Cal.App., 49 P.2d 857; Bond v. United Railroads, 159 Cal. 270, 113 P. 366, 48 L.R.A.,N.S., 687; Varcoe v. Lee, 180 Cal. 338, 181 P. 223; Aldrich v. Palmer, 24 Cal. 513, 516; Doolin v. Omnibus Cable Co., 125 Cal. 141, 144, 57 P. 774; Anderson v. San Francisco-Oakland Terminal Railways, 61 Cal.App. 21, 214 P. 289; Redfield v. Oakland Consol. St. Railway Co., 110 Cal. 277, 42 P. 822, 1063; Tedford v. Los Angeles Electric Co., 134 Cal. 76, 66 P. 76, 54 L.R.A. 85; 13 Cyc. 123. There is no evidence in the case at bar of any acts or circumstances indicating passion or prejudice on the part of the jury in either case. The District Court cites only the amounts of the verdicts as indicative thereof. We are all agreed that these verdicts are not so large as to show on the face of them that they are the result of passion and prejudice.  The value of the counsel, advice, guidance, loving care, and solicitude of both mother and father would be difficult of ascertainment in money and must be left to the sound judgment of a jury, where it is not shown that such judgment was swayed beyond reason and common sense by passion or prejudice. Halbrook v. Williams, 185 Ark. 885, 50 S.W.2d 243, 245. The District Court erred in granting new trials on the grounds of excessive verdicts. The orders of the District Court setting aside the verdicts and granting new trials are reversed and the cases are remanded with directions to re-instate the verdicts and judgments originally entered. MORRIS, C. J., and CHRISTIANSON, SATHRE and BURKE, JJ., concur.