Court Opinion

ID: 1386346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-10-30 05:54:07.256594+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:31.112546
License: Public Domain

76 S.E.2d 162 (1953)
238 N.C. 136
HINTON
v.
CLINE et al.
No. 745.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
June 12, 1953.
*163 H. Clay Hemric, Burlington, for plaintiff, appellant.
Long & Long and Paul H. Ridge, Graham, for defendants, appellees.
ERVIN, Justice.
The plaintiff assigns as error the refusal of the trial judge to set the verdict aside and award him a new trial on the ground of inadequacy of the damages.
The granting or the denying of a motion for a new trial on the ground that the damages assessed by the jury are excessive or inadequate is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. McClamroch v. Colonial Ice Co., 217 N.C. 106, 6 S.E.2d 850; Johnston v. Johnston, 213 N.C. 255, 195 S.E. 807; Waller v. Hipp, 208 N.C. 117, 179 S.E. 428; Blum v. Southern R. Co., 187 N.C. 640, 122 S.E. 562; Hoke v. Whisnant, 174 N.C. 658, 94 S.E. 446; Harvey v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, 153 N.C. 567, 69 S.E. 627; Billings v. Charlotte Observer, 150 N.C. 540, 64 S.E. 435; Braddy v. Elliott, 146 N.C. 578, 60 S.E. 507, 16 L.R.A.,N.S., 1121; Boney v. Atlantic & N. C. Railroad, 145 N.C. 248, 58 S.E. 1082; Slocumb v. Philadelphia Construction Co., 142 N.C. 349, 55 S.E. 196; Phillips v. Postal Telegraph Co., 130 N.C. 513, 41 S.E. 1022; Burns v. Ashboro & M. Railroad, 125 N.C. 304, 34 S.E. 495; Benton v. Collins, 125 N.C. 83, 34 S.E. 242, 47 L.R.A. 33; Benton v. North Carolina Railroad, 122 N. C. 1007, 30 S.E. 333; Norton v. North Carolina Railroad, 122 N.C. 910, 29 S.E. 886; Goodson v. Mullin and Derr, 92 N.C. 211; Brown v. Morris, 20 N.C. 565; Young v. Hairston, 14 N.C. 54. His decision on the motion will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is obvious that he abused his discretion. Lamm v. Lorbacher, 235 N.C. 728, 71 S.E.2d 49; Francis v. Francis, 223 N. C. 401, 26 S.E.2d 907; Freeman v. Bell, 150 N.C. 146, 63 S.E. 682.
An abuse of discretion does not appear in the case at bar. Indeed, the evidence *164 at the trial was consistent with the view that the plaintiff's personal injuries were limited to temporary bruises.
No error.