Court Opinion

ID: 9557697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 16:55:23.781732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:14.989823
License: Public Domain

Fatzeh, J.,
concurring specially: As the court’s opinion indicates, this is the third appearance of this case. The first appeal concerned the sufficiency of the petition to allege a cause of action, and the second involved the sufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence to prove allegations of the defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s freedom of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Following the second appeal, the case was tried by a jury and the defendant was found to be negligent as charged and the plaintiff was freed of contributory negligence. The claim is now made that the verdict is so grossly inadequate in view of the severity, duration, extent and permanency of the plaintiff’s injuries as to indicate passion and prejudice on the part of the jury. In my judgment the record clearly discloses the verdict is grossly inadequate and I concur in the court’s opinion granting the plaintiff a new trial. However, in view of the extended character of this litigation and since the defendant’s liability has *292been determined, I would not grant a new trial generally, but would limit it solely to the amount of plaintiff’s damages.
Wertz, J., joins in the foregoing specially concurring opinion.