Court Opinion

ID: 9562194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:23:25.59177+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:14.918452
License: Public Domain

Whittle, J.,
dissenting:
I cannot agree with the majority opinion.
*815As suggested by the majority, there are cases where the subject of insurance has been mentioned which should not and did not disturb the outcome of the trial. Each case depends upon the way the question is developed and the effect of its development upon the jury as viewed by the trial judge.
We were not present at the trial of this case. The trial, however, was presided over by an able and distinguished judge, thoroughly conscious of his duty to see that justice was done.
The plaintiff sued for $20,000, and within moments after submission of the case the jury on the first trial returned a verdict for the full amount. The record disclosed no evidence of permanent injury. On motion of the defendant, the court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, set this verdict aside and ordered a new trial on all issues.
On the second trial there was no mention of insurance, and the jury returned a verdict for $6,500, which was approved by the court and judgment entered thereon. Certainly one should ponder the question: Why the difference in the amount of the two verdicts?
I share the respect accorded the verdict of a jury fairly rendered. I also respect the judgment of the trial judge who, in exercising the broad discretion granted him in the conduct of a trial, either approves or disapproves the verdict.
It is the rule in Virginia that a jury’s verdict, supported by the judgment of the trial judge, cannot be disturbed unless plainly wrong. This is not true where the verdict is not so supported.
“But with all the respect that is justly due to the verdict of a jury, and which is freely accorded to it, if there has been ‘a plain deviation from right and justice’ even a court of law will not make itself a party to such a wrong by entering up judgment on it.” Burks Pleading and Practice, 4th ed., § 325, pp. 604, 609; Smith v. Turner, 178 Va. 172, 16 S. E. 2d 370, 136 A. L. R. 1251; Smith v. Richmond, 184 Va. 40, 34 S. E. 2d 371.
There are three elements which I think clearly justified the court in setting aside the first verdict: (1) The admission of evidence showing that the defendant carried insurance; (2) the verdict was for the full amount sued for when there was no proof that plaintiff had sustained permanent injuries as alleged; and (3) the immediate return of the verdict showed a lack of deliberation.
While no one of these elements may be sufficient, considered together they justified the trial judge (in the exercise of the sound discretion vested in him) in setting aside the verdict.
*816“* * * (A) court should be allowed more latitude in setting aside a verdict and granting a new trial than it is in sustaining a demurrer to the evidence, or a motion to strike out all the evidence; because these constitute a decision of the case on the merits, while granting a new trial simply leaves the determination to another jury.” Burks Pleading and Practice, supra, § 325, p. 615.
The result of the second trial clearly demonstrates the correctness of the trial court’s ruling, and the judgment should be affirmed.
Hudgins, C.J., and Spratley, J., join in this dissent.