Court Opinion

ID: 9595176
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:36:41.004903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:26.336771
License: Public Domain

*565Wenke, J.,
dissenting.
I cannot agree that the record presents a situation which makes the verdict of $4,500 rendered by the jury so exorbitant or excessive as to indicate that it was the result of passion, prejudice, or mistake, or that it is clear that the jury disregarded the evidence so as to give the trial court the power to set it aside.
When a party has succeeded in securing a verdict of a jury on the facts in issue he is entitled to keep it unless there is prejudicial error in the proceedings by which it was secured. If, after a verdict is obtained, a motion for new trial is made which finds no legal reason in the record to support it the trial court has no judicial discretion in ruling thereon but must deny it. See Greenberg v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 150 Neb. 695, 35 N. W. 2d 772.
Admittedly appellee was liable. The only question presented was the amount appellant was entitled to recover. To determine what the amount should be was the function of the jury and one with which we have no right to interfere as being excessive if there has been evidence adduced sufficient to support it. As stated in Greenberg v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., supra: “That (the) rule does not authorize the district court to invade the province of the jury and to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial because the court arrived at a different conclusion than the jury on the evidence that went to the jury.”
In this regard the appellant, since she recovered the. verdict, is entitled to have the evidence adduced considered in. the light of the following: “In testing the sufficiency of evidence to support a verdict it must be considered in the light most favorable to the successful party, that is, every controverted fact must be resolved in his favor and he should have the benefit of every inference that can reasonably be deduced therefrom.” Borcherding v. Eklund, ante p. 196, 55 N. W. 2d 643.
While there is evidence in the record to support a *566finding that appellant suffered loss of earnings, had a moderate amount of medical expense, and has some permanent conditions which, with reasonable certainty, the evidence shows will at least cause her pain and inconvenience in the future, if not some disability, this dissent will not consider those items further. What is herein of primary concern is the pain which appellant, suffered as a consequence of the injuries received and the' suffering arising therefrom during the period between the date of the accident, December 31, 1950, and the date of the trial which began on April 16, 1952, or a period of about 15% months.
Appellant is a registered practical nurse. At the time of the accident she was a widow, 58 years of age, and self-supporting. The type of work she performed required that she be on her feet a good deal of the time. Prior to. the accident she testified she had never experienced trouble with her feet and ankles.
From the evidence adduced the jury could have found: That the immediate result of the accident was injury to' appellant’s feet and lower limbs consisting of several severe bruises resulting in complete discoloration and severe swelling, and severe injury to the toes of her left foot; that these injuries caused her immediate excruciating pain; that the swelling, discoloration, and bruises, although treated, remained for months and continued to cause her to. suffer severe pain; that because of this suffering she was unable to sleep; that her condition made standing or walking difficult and painful, making it necessary for her to rest often and walk with a limp; that because of this condition she became nervous; that after some 4 months this condition began to improve as a result of the treatments she took but she still continued to suffer pain and the inconvenience of not being able to be on her feet for any length of time and continued to have difficulty sleeping; that her left foot, because of the injuries thereto, became stiff and made walkingdifficult and tiring; and that these conditions continued *567to exist at the time of the trial some 15% months after the accident, although in a lesser degree.
As stated in 25 C. J. S., Damages, § 93, p. 641: “There is no standard by which physical pain and suffering may be measured and compensated for in money.”
And as stated in Remmenga v. Selk, 152 Neb. 625, 42 N. W. 2d 186: “In an action for damages, where the law furnishes no legal rule for measuring them, the amount to be awarded rests largely in the sound discretion of the jury, and the courts are reluctant to interfere with a verdict so rendered.”
Taking into consideration the pain, suffering, and inconvenience which the evidence shows this appellant suffered during the 15% months which resulted from appellee’s admitted fault, I think the verdict is sustained by the evidence, especially when the other items are included. This is particularly true when these elements are considered in the light of the rule: “* * * that in this class of cases it properly comes within the province of the jury to take into account the purchasing power of money with respect to the commodities that are in use by the public generally and that may reasonably be said to constitute the necessaries of life.” Dailey v. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W., 106 Neb. 767, 184 N. W. 920.
As stated in the majority opinion, there are other reasons assigned by appellee why the ruling of the trial court was correct. Since the majority opinion does not-discuss them and it is not based thereon this dissent will not in any way deal with the merits thereof. It is directed solely to the grounds upon which the majority opinion is based, that is, the sufficiency of the evidence adduced to support the verdict of the jury.
Chappell, J., joins in this dissent.