Court Opinion

ID: 9742894
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:22:16.354327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:37.508181
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE WERBER, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur with my colleagues on all matters in the opinion except that concerning the adequacy of damages. As the majority acknowledges, the assessment of damages is the particular function of the jury and should not be disturbed except in extreme circumstances. In my judgment this is not such a case. The award of approximately *5,000 as general damages cannot, even in these inflationary times, be called nominal, as was the situation in Wallace. Nor was there proof of support, as there seldom is in the case of minors, as was the case in Kell. The true loss of a child is the bereavement for which no amount of damages can stand as recompense. This was adequately demonstrated to the jury in this case. If we say in this case that $5,000 is inadequate for a good student who was athletic, intelligent and devoted, we shall be compelled by logic to order a remittitur in some future case wherein the student might be of lesser caliber. This is a thin sheet of legal ice upon which to skate. I much prefer to leave the matter to the collective wisdom of 12 citizens of the community. I would affirm the trial court in all respects.