Court Opinion

ID: 9542352
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:33:26.787192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:47.175273
License: Public Domain

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE JAMES T. HARRISON
dissenting:
I dissent and concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice John C. Harrison.
I should like to discuss briefly the second specification of error which covers the insufficiency of the verdict awarded plaintiff.
As shown by the majority opinion, plaintiff contended that the verdict was $18.20 less than out-of-pocket expenses, not to mention loss of earnings and pain and suffering. The jury was properly instructed as to these items of damage but it is apparent that the jury did not follow the court’s instructions as to the damages.
While the majority are of the opinion that there was substantial evidence to support the jury verdict, I cannot agree in that respect.
The plaintiff is still under his doctor’s care, and his doctor testified to further treatment necessary in that plaintiff would lave to be observed for another six months and if certain conditions occurred then more radical treatment would have to be undertaken; defendant’s physician witness testified to further treatment that he would prescribe for the plaintiff. Both doctors outlined further treatment as necessary.
In view of this evidence I have searched the record to account for this small award in view of the jury’s determination fixing liability upon defendant.
*295This brings my thinking back to the primary issue, the admission of Dr. Sawyer’s report giving his opinion that plaintiff’s neck was normal, as discussed in the dissenting opinion of my associate. In the circumstances existing in this case it may be that the jury laid great stress upon Dr. Sawyer’s opinion, I cannot explain the size of the verdict in any other manner.
In view of the hearsay rule, coupled as it is in this ease with a verdict obviously in disregard of the law of the case as laid down in the court’s instructions, I most sincerely believe that the admission of the report was prejudicial.
These being my views I would order a new trial.