Court Opinion

ID: 9627498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:46:01.478423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:44:19.713267
License: Public Domain

WOOD (W. J.), J., Dissenting.
I dissent. In this action plaintiffs Harriett Crandall and Addie Robinson seek to recover damages for injuries which they suffered when an automobile driven by defendant collided with an automobile owned and driven by L. G. Robinson, in which they were riding. Defendant has appealed from an order granting plaintiffs a new trial on the single issue of the amount of damages to be awarded.
Among the injuries suffered by plaintiff Crandall as a result of the collision were three fractures of the jaw, lacerations, and an injury to her knee. Among the injuries suffered by plaintiff Robinson were a fractured cheek bone and concussion of the brain. Special damages were proved by plaintiffs in the sum of $585.67 for physicians’ and nurses’ services and hospitalization and medical expenses. There appears to be no conflict in the evidence as to the injuries suffered or as to the special damages incurred. The case was tried with a jury which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff Crandall in the sum of $435.64 and in favor of plaintiff Robinson in the sum of $50.22, the total for both parties being $485.86.
Plaintiffs presented a motion for a new trial on the issue of damages only and defendant presented a motion for a new trial on all issues. The court denied defendant’s motion but granted plaintiffs’ motion and thereby limited the new trial to the single issue of the amount of damages.
Defendant. contends that, since the evidence on the issue of defendant’s alleged negligence is conflicting and since the jury awarded a sum less than the undisputed special damages, the trial court erred in limiting the new trial to the single issue of damages. In my opinion the decision in Wallace v. Miller, 26 Cal. App. (2d) 55 [78 P. (2d) 745], is determinative of the question. In that case the plaintiff suffered damages in the sum of $120.25 for medical bills and $203.64 for repairs to his automobile. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $120.25. On motion of the plaintiff the trial court granted a new trial on the question of damages only. The reviewing court reversed this order, pointing out that *443the evidence was of about equal strength on the question of liability and that the plaintiff, if entitled to recover, should have been awarded all of his special damages and an amount sufficient to compensate him for his personal injuries. The court held that “the primarily important question, namely the negligence of defendant, was not determined by the jury” and that the court’s failure to grant a new trial on all issues was “an arbitrary refusal to exercise a reasonable discretion.” The court relied upon Donnatin v. Union Hardware & Metal Co., 38 Cal. App. 8 [175 Pac. 26, 177 Pac. 845], and upon Bencich v. Market St. Ry. Co., 20 Cal. App. (2d) 518 [67 Pac. (2d) 398], where it is said: “The verdict of the jury which found, in effect, that defendants were guilty of negligence and that plaintiff was free from contributory negligence and yet allowed damages which were grossly inadequate, furnishes convincing proof as said in the Donnatin case, supra, page 11, ‘that in order to reach ah agreement, the verdict was the result of unwarranted concessions of convictions made by each of two opposing factions of the jury, one of which conscientiously believed that defendant should prevail in the action and the other equally conscientious in the opinion that plaintiff should recover damages commensurate with the injuries sustained. ’ ... In view of this uncertainty and the fact that clearly something other than the evidence on the question of damages must have actuated the jury, or some of them in arriving at such a low verdict, substantial justice requires that (as said in the Donnatin case, supra, page 11), ‘. . . what is a just compensation the plaintiff should receive, if he is entitled to recover at all, can best be determined by trying the whole case before one judge and one jury instead of “splitting it up” between different judges and different juries. . . .’ ”
The facts in the case now before us bear a striking similarity to the facts in the case of Wallace v. Miller, supra. The testimony of the drivers of the two automobiles was in sharp conflict, the statement of each if believed by the jury being sufficient to excuse him from liability. I cannot agree with the statement contained in the majority opinion that the proof of defendant’s negligence is “overwhelming.” Nor was the testimony of defendant without support in the evidence. Defendant introduced in evidence three photographs of the automobiles involved in the collision and now properly argues *444that they give strength to Ms contentions. A deputy sheriff, called as a witness by defendant, testified that both headlights on the Robinson car were broken and that he found glass and debris 10 feet east of the west curb of Woods Avenue, thus, according to counsel’s argument giving corroboration to defendant’s testimony that the Robinson car was only partially in the intersection at the time of the impact. The fact that the testimony of three schoolboys, which contained discrepancies, was favorable to the contentions of plaintiffs does not, in my opiMon, justify a holding by the reviewing court that as a matter of law the evidence was overwhelming in favor of either party. The only distinction that can be made between the Wallace v. Miller case and the ease now before us is that in the Wallace v. Miller case the reviewing court stated that the evidence of the parties was “of about equal strength.” The true rule to be derived from the decision in Wallace v. Miller and the eases therein relied upon is that where the evidence is conflicting and sufficient to support a verdict in favor of either party and the jury returns a verdict for less than the uncontroverted special damages a new trial should be granted on all of the issues.
A petition for a rehearing was denied May 22, 1942. Wood (W. J.), J., voted for a rehearing. Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied June 19, 1942. Edmonds, J., voted for a hearing.