Court Opinion

ID: 9631349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:35:03.255426+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:52.207480
License: Public Domain

Opinion Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part by
Mr. Justice Mush anno:
I concur with the majority opinion with regard to liability of the Bell Telephone Company for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff, but dissent from the decision to lop off $4,000 from the verdict returned by the jury. Expert testimony established that the plaintiff sustained a serious injury to his back and that the pathological condition resulting from that injury will become progressively worse.
The court below, in considering the amount of the verdict, said: “There was evidence in the record to show that plaintiff suffered'permanent disability as a result of this accident; that he lost considerable sums of money because he was not able to carry on his mining operations; and that he suffered considerable pain and inconvénience. The . award of the jury was for 'fii,000.00;'In-the light'of the foregoing, we 'cannot'gay that *463the amount of the verdict shocks the conscience of the court.”
$11,000 did not shock the conscience of the court and jury which saw and heard the plaintiff and saw and heard the testimony of all the doctors in the case. How can we then, by a simple reading of the printed page, diagnose with such medical precision and probe with such scientific accuracy, that we can apply the scalpel of appellate absolutism and amputate away what we have no right to touch except under the most extraordinary circumstances which assuredly are not present here? $11,000 as a verdict for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff does not shock my sense of justice, but a needless amputation does.