Court Opinion

ID: 5505049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-10 03:08:54.43877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:34:01.618366
License: Public Domain

PRATT, J.
The only questions seriously discussed are whether the circuit judge fell into error in his instructions as to the rule of damages, and, if error exists, whether it requires a new trial. The jury were told that, if lightning was the primary cause of the destruction, they might give a verdict for the whole damage sustained, $2,747; but, if lightning was not the primary cause of the destruction, they should give only such verdict as would compensate for the damage directly caused by lightning. Had the jury given a verdict for $2,747, we should have been compelled to carefully construe the language of the policy. It is, however, evident that the jury made the discrimination suggested by the court, and allowed a recovery for such portion of the loss as they believed to be caused by the direct action of the lightning, ascribing $1,647 of the loss to other causes. The question whether they could have properly given a verdict for the larger sum becomes unimportant. No other subject requires discussion. Affirmed, with costs.