Court Opinion

ID: 9725532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:51:41.769077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:16.256528
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Prime, J.
— I concur in part and dissent in part. The majority analysis of the applicable law in this case is comprehensive and correct in all respects save one — that this court should not disturb the award of damages. The rule cited by Judge Wickens is that “(t)he damages, therefore, must be so excessive as to strike mankind, at first blush, as being, beyond all measure, unreasonable, and outrageous, and such as manifestly show the jury to have been actuated by passion, partiality, prejudice, or corruption.” Jury for present purposes means trier of fact, the case at bar having been tried without intervention of a jury.
It is my opinion that the damage award of $100,000.00 is so excessive at “first blush” that some factor other than reasonable compensation for expenditures made and pain and suffering undergone may have entered into its consideration. The attorney for appellee had authority to accept $50,000 for pre-trial settlement, which offer he transmitted to appellant’s attorney, who responded with an offer of $25,000 for settlement. The trial court was apprised of these attempts at a negotiated settlement by letters which were placed in the record.
I agree that no rule of thumb is available to evaluate the propriety of an award for any given injury, but such award should be within the bounds of reason. Appropriate statement has recently been made in Talley v. Employers Mutual Lia*157bility Insurance Company (La. Appeals 1966), 181 So. 2nd 784, at page 790:
“. . . (I)t is certain there can be no fixed mathematical formula for assessing damages from multiple injuries, with their accompanying pain and suffering and duration. Each .case must rest on its own particular facts. The amount awarded need not be the same, but not be too far above or below prior awards for comparable injuries.”
Comparable cases in our jurisdiction indicate that the award here is not reasonable.
The judgment should be reversed and remanded on the sole issue of damages, with instructions that the trial court re-evaluate its award significantly downward.
Note. — Reported in 221 N. E. 2d 824.