Court Opinion

ID: 9639256
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:09:43.075205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:32.863148
License: Public Domain

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Mb. Justice Eagen:
I agree that the verdict, of the jury, finding both Gotto and Bailey guilty of causative negligence, was fully justified by the evidence. Hence neither should recover and judgment should.be entered for each defendant in the lawsuits instituted one against the other. However, in the case of Ischo against Bailey and Gotto, I. am firmly convinced that a new trial should be granted and that the lower court abused its discretion in refusing to do so.. In this case I, therefore, dissent.
The plaintiff Ischo, was in no manner responsible for this accident. He was truly an innocent third party. As the majority opinion points out, the negligence of the drivers of both cars involved in the accident was abundantly clear. There was not an iota of evidence to even suggest any possible contributory negligence on the part of Ischo. The evidence is clearly preponderate in favor of his right to recover as against both Gotto and Bailey.
His (Ischo) injuries were extremely serious. He suffered, among other injuries, comminuted fractures of the tibia and fibula in the lower third portion of the left leg. When the cast was removed, approximately eight months after the accident, it was found *292that the leg was markedly atrophied with ankylosis of the ankle and the knee; in addition, there was a deformity resulting from the angulation or bowing toward the back of both the tibia and the fibula. The final outcome was a twenty-five to thirty per cent functional disability of the leg, permanent in nature.1 He was only thirty years of age at the time of the occurrence and was a skilled and experienced cabinetmaker.
The verdict awarded was $1009 for pain and suffering and nothing whatever for permanent physical disability or loss of earning capacity. In view of the uncontroverted evidence as to the extent of the injuries and the fact that the liability was clearly established, this award was ridiculously inadequate. The majority opinion pointedly states, “[T]he jury’s award was undoubtedly very, very low.” It also states that the jury had the right to find that the plaintiff will suffer no future loss of earning power. How a man, engaged in the trade plaintiff enjoys, can admittedly suffer twenty-five to thirty per cent permanent functional disability of the leg with no resulting loss of future earning power, is just beyond my comprehension.
The lower court and the majority opinion urges that this inadequacy is offset by the award given for loss of wages.2 It is said that the verdict in this respect “wás too generous” and “on this item it is doubtful whether plaintiff was entitled to any amount whatever.” If this be the case, then this claim should not have been submitted to the jury in the first place. However, the record is patently clear that the claim *293for loss of earnings was a factual question for the jury to resolve and, significantly, no one disputes that this is so. While he was paid his usual salary during the period of his total disability, later on this total sum was completely taken away by charging the amount against his capital interest in the business. The fact that the trial judge disbelieved the evidence, supporting the claim for loss of wages, is insufficient legal reason to cancel it out. Again, I quote from the opinion of my distinguished colleague, “It is the province of the jury to assess the worth of the testimony and to accept or reject the estimates given by witnesses.”
Finally, the conclusion that because the plaintiff was awarded too much for loss of wages (in the opinion of the trial judge), he should be denied adequate compensation for injuries unquestionably suffered through the negligence of the defendants, is not in accord with my thinking.
Justice demands a new trial.
Mr. Justice Musmanno and Mr. Justice Benjamin B. Jones join in this opinion.

 All of this was undenied and, in fact, substantially corroborated by a physician- who examined plaintiff for the defendant, Bailey.

 Incorrectly designated “Loan.”