Court Opinion

ID: 9845958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:31:51.401624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:29.912377
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Chief Justice
(concurring).
I concur. Doing so I note with some sort of satisfaction that by and large the main opinion has emasculated the decision *431in Bodon v. Suhrmann, 8 Utah 2d 42, 327 P.2d 826 (1958) when it says “Fundamental to the problem here presented is the proposition that the determination of damages is peculiarly within the province of the jury,” thus settling the matter as to the authority of the court with respect to additurs. (See Dimick v. Schiedt, 1935, 293 U.S. 474, 55 S.Ct. 296, 301, 79 L.Ed. 603, 95 A.L.R. 1150; Lorf v. City of Detroit, 1906, 145 Mich. 265, 108 N.W. 661; Dorsey v. Barba, 1952, 38 Cal.2d 350, 240 P.2d 604.)