Court Opinion

ID: 9865225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:27:40.852112+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:57.046564
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Bakke,
dissenting in part.
I dissent to that portion of the Court’s opinion which approves the award of $18,000. I think the amount is clearly excessive. The suggested inference in the opinion of a permanent injury as derived from the language, “with no time fixed as to when it would heal, if ever” relating to the small aperture in plaintiff’s abdomen, present at the time of the trial, is not based upon any testimony in the record. I think her speedy and apparent complete recovery after the corrective operation, as indicated by her statement that she “felt swell,” is a complete refutation of the suggestion made in the *354opinion. Without this suggested possibility of a permanent injury the judgment is clearly excessive.
That permanent injury is an essential element appears from our opinion in Kohut v. Boguslavsky, 78 Colo. 95, 239 Pac. 876, a case in which a young married woman was given a verdict for $15,000. We reversed the judgment as excessive, saying: “We do not think the evidence discloses any permanent injuries were sustained by the plaintiff.” This same test was applied in the Colorado Springs case cited in the Court’s opinion.
The author of the court opinion cites, and quotes from, American Jurisprudence. The same work under the heading “Appeal and Error,” in addition to the matter quoted, contains the statement: “However, when a verdict is so grossly disproportionate to any reasonable compensation warranted by the facts that it shocks the sense of justice and raises at once a strong presumption that it is based on prejudice or passion, rather than on sober judgment, the appellate court should not hesitate to set it aside * * 3 Am. Jur. 454.
What is reasonable compensation in a case of this character? A study of the many cases digested in Parmele’s Damage Verdicts under the caption, “Verdicts in Actions Against Physicians, Surgeons or Dentists, for Malpractice, Attacked as Excessive,” convinces me that that verdict is excessive when compared with what is considered proper in this type of cases. The largest sum held not excessive in the long list of verdicts given, is for $10,000: “Operation to remove ovary, appendix and hemorrhoids; gauze left in vagina, without patient’s knowledge even after being discharged from physician’s care, Cowan v. Bouffleur (1915) 192 Ill. App. 21.” The case is not fully reported in 192 Ill. App., but the allegation recited that “plaintiff’s health was seriously injured thereby.” Parmele’s Damage Verdicts, Vol. 2, p. 1294. In the list of excessive verdicts the two largest sums are $12,620 and $12,000 respectively. (Vol. 2, pages 1294-1299, supra). It is true that this same authority *355cites a long list of verdicts for larger sums, but in those cases the injuries were permanent resulting in disfigurement, amputation, etc.
The question of whether the jury’s consideration of the instant case resulted in a quotient verdict, is a close one, but in view of the record, I agree that we would not be justified in reversing the judgment on the ground that it was based upon such a verdict; however, a review of the affidavits touching the subject impresses me with the view that the subject is a debatable one.
The fact that the jury returned its verdict for the large amount imposed as damages in about thirty minutes, in connection with the circumstances that the trial occupied the attention of the court for some two weeks, indicates to me that matters other than a careful, deliberate and unbiased consideration prompted the result.
It will be noted the court’s opinion cites no specific malpractice case in which a judgment for $18,000 was approved, where no permanent disability was established. There may be such cases, but my own search of the authorities disclosed none, and none are cited in the briefs.