Court Opinion

ID: 9543759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:48:58.990562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:08.420144
License: Public Domain

ARNOLD, Justice
(dissenting).
Appellate courts should be practical as •well as right. This court is behind on its ■docket. Time should be conserved where possible without detrimentally affecting the absolute duty to administer justice promptly.
There are two thing's beyond dispute in these cases: The evidence of the plaintiff in each case is amply sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury on the elements of damages alleged, to wit: medical bills and pain and suffering (the separate verdict returned for Wanda Gilley on these elements was .$679.35 for medical expenses and $2,000 for pain and suffering, and the separate verdict for Betty McLean was $702.75 for medical expenses and $2,000 for pain and ■suffering) ; the evidence is wholly insufficient to sustain the separate verdict returned for Wanda Gilley for $2,167 for loss of earning power and the separate verdict for Betty McLean for $3,000 loss of earning power. The judgments rendered on these separate verdicts are likewise separable as to the amounts awarded for each element of damages. The majority opinion is correct in holding that the verdicts and judgments on the item of loss of earning power are not sustained by the evidence and that there is no error in any other regard.
While there is some evidence on the element of damages, to wit: loss of earnings, it is not sufficient. The only obj ection to the instruction on damages and recovery is that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the entire recovery. However, the verdict of the jury separates the elements of damages as hereinbefore shown and the court’s judgment likewise separated them. In order to do justice promptly and practically the separate parts of the judgment in each case that is sustained by the evidence ($679.35 medical bills and $2,000 pain and suffering in the Gilley case and $702.75 medical bills and $2,000 pain and suffering in the McLean case) should be affirmed and the cause otherwise reversed for new trial. Holbrook v. Moore, 177 Okl. 173, 58 P.2d 865; Cramer v. Bock, 21 Wash.2d 13, 149 P.2d 525; Downer v. Southern Union Gas Co., 53 N.Mex. 354, 208 P.2d 815; Davis v. Baum, 192 Okl. 85, 133 P.2d 889; Rawle v. McIlhenny, 163 Va. 735, 177 S.E. 214, 98 A.L.R. 930, 39 Am.Jur., New Trial, Sec. 20-24; 3 Am.Jur., Appeal and Error, Secs. 1226 and 1227. These cases are specific authority on partial' affirmance and partial reversal with directions.
Only one of the elements of damages is not sustained by the evidence. Under a partial affirmance and reversal and direction to take evidence on the reversed portion of the judgments, to wit: loss of earnings, these cases can be retried in two hours time each.
It is no wonder that the majority opinion cites no authority supporting the affirmance of the judgments here upon condition of remittitur of that portion of the judgments for loss of earnings and directing the court below to grant a complete new trial if the remittitur is hot made. There is no such authority. However, I admit that this court can establish such precedent if it wants to.
The establishment of such precedent and its applicability in this case is in my judgment very impractical.