Court Opinion

ID: 9519686
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:22:45.293569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:36.563284
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE STOUDER, specially concurring: I concur in the result reached by the majority but I am not wholly in accord with some of the reasoning announced in the opinion. In particular I do not agree with the conclusion that the granting or denial of new trial on the issue of damages only is merely a matter of judicial discretion and consequently the only issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion. It seems to me that tire issue on appeal is whether the judgment is excessive because it has no basis in the evidence. In this respect the trial court must consider the evidence and its relation to the verdict of the jury in the same sense and from tire same point of view that we as a court of review would consider such verdict and evidence had the trial court denied the defendant’s motion and there was an appeal from the judgment. It seems to me the majority is saying that there are or can be circumstances which would justify a trial court granting a new triál where a court of review would not be so justified. In logic and reason I see no reason for different standards. I do however agree with the result reached by the majority because in my opinion the verdict is beyond the range of the evidence and consequently I believe the trial court’s action in so finding should be affirmed. In so doing I would emphasize the unsatisfactory state of the evidence presented by the plaintiff herself which could have permitted a jury to base its verdict on conjecture, surmise or speculation. As indicated in the majority opinion Doctor Doyle, an examining physician, testified about a surgical procedure which could have successfully eliminated the permanent injury complained of by the plaintiff. This testimony was apparently not expected by plaintiff’s attorney, and there is nothing in the testimony either of the physician or of the plaintiff indicating that the surgical procedure had been discussed or recommended and consequently there is nothing in the record indicating the plaintiff had or had not declined to undergo the operation, whether her actions in regard to the operation were reasonable or unreasonable, and indeed the reasonable or likely effect of such an operation is subject to dispute so far as Doctor Doyle’s testimony is concerned. On this appeal, the parties have in light of Doctor Doyle’s testimony discussed at some length the consequences and rules applicable where a recommended surgical procedure is declined by plaintiff. With respect to such issue I think it is sufficient to say that generally speaking the refusal to undergo an operation is not a bar to recovery. However, this is not the issue in the instant case, since so far as the record is concerned, we have a recommendation by an examining physician that a surgical procedure would alleviate a condition complained of by the plaintiff without any complementary testimony relating such medical opinion to plaintiff’s condition either present or future. In conclusion, while I agree there was no error in the admission of a physician’s testimony or the patient’s testimony, nevertheless the failure of the plaintiff to connect the physician’s testimony with the plaintiff’s condition might well have confused the jury.