Opinion ID: 2375256
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Verdict indicative of bias and prejudice?

Text: Appellant makes the point that the verdict in favor of both plaintiffs was excessive and its excessiveness is evidence of bias and prejudice on the part of the jury, and the trial court erred in failing to sustain defendant's motion for a new trial [on this ground]. Appellant argues that plaintiff's evidence revealed numerous factors contributing to if not causing plaintiff's inability to work as a truck driver, not related or attributable to the injuries suffered August 30, 1964; points out the medical testimony favorable to appellant, and draws comparisons between the experience and abilities of appellant's and respondents' medical witnesses, but does not seek a remittitur. By attacking the size of the verdict on the sole ground that it is so excessive as to evidence bias and prejudice appellant is claiming that the verdict is the result of misconduct on the part of the jury. Misconduct of this gravity, when found, vitiates a verdict in its entirety, cannot be corrected by remittitur, and requires that the verdict be set aside and a new trial be awarded not only on the question of damages but also on the question of liability. Skadal v. Brown, Mo.Sup., 351 S.W.2d 684 [14]; Nussbaum v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co. of Maine, Mo.Sup., 359 S.W.2d 335 [4]. The mere size of a verdict, however, is not sufficient in and of itself to establish that the verdict was the result of misconduct, bias or prejudice. There must have been some incident or occurrence at the trial, or error committed, of such a nature as to engender bias, passion or prejudice. Skadal, Nussbaum, supra, and authorities cited. Trial courts may pass on the weight of the evidence in considering the size of the verdict but it is not the function of appellate courts to weigh the evidence in reviewing a jury case. Certainly it should not do so when [as here] this ground has been presented to the trial court and it has found against this contention. (Our brackets.) Nussbaum, supra, 359 S.W.2d l. c. 341 [6]. Appellant fails to point out any incident or occurrence at the trial to justify a finding of misconduct on the part of the jury, and we have found none. Appellant suggests merely that the cumulative evidence in this case which required some four days to try and the dramatics surrounding the fire caused the jury to be carried away, and that the pain endured by plaintiff aroused the natural sympathy of the jury. These are insufficient bases upon which to find misconduct, bias, passion or prejudice. The judgment is affirmed. WELBORN and HIGGINS, CC., concur.