To the same effect see Richmond v. Campbell, 148 W. Va. 595, pt. 2 syl., 136 S.E.2d 877; Flanagan v. Mott, 145 W. Va. 220, pt. 2 syl., 114 S.E.2d 331; Yuncke v. Welker, 128 W. Va. 299, pts. 3 and 4 syl., 36 S.E.2d 410; Webb v. Chesapeake Ohio Railway Co., 105 W. Va. 555, pt. 3 syl., 144 S.E. 100; Bowling v. Guyan Lumber Co., 105 W. Va. 309, pt. 1 syl., 143 S.E. 86; Looney v. Norfolk Western RailwayCo., 102 W. Va. 40, 55, 135 S.E. 262, 268; Gibbard v. Evans, 87 W. Va. 650, pt. 4 syl., 106 S.E. 37; Holt v. Otis Elevator Co., 78 W. Va. 785, pt. 5 syl., 90 S.E. 333; Corrick v. Western Maryland Railway Co., 79 W. Va. 592, pt. 2 syl., 91 S.E. 458; Trice v. Chesapeake Ohio Railway Co., 40 W. Va. 271, pt. 3 syl., 21 S.E. 1022.
See also State Road Commission v. Moss, 108 W. Va. 267, 150 S.E. 722; Guyandot Valley Railway Company v. Buskirk, 57 W. Va. 417, 50 S.E. 521, 11 Am. St. Rep. 785; Kay v. Glade Creek and Raleigh Railroad Company, 47 W. Va. 467, 35 S.E. 973. The rule by which a court will be governed in acting upon a verdict challenged as excessive, in an action in which the claim is for unliquidated damages, announced, recognized and applied in many decisions of this Court, is that the verdict will not be set aside as excessive unless it is unsupported by the evidence or is so large that it indicates that the jury was influenced by passion, partiality, prejudice or corruption, or entertained a mistaken view of the case. Davis v. Pugh, 133 W. Va. 569, 57 S.E.2d 9; Yuncke v. Welker, 128 W. Va. 299, 36 S.E.2d 410; Meadows v. Corinne Coal and Land Company, 115 W. Va. 522, 177 S.E. 281; Thalman v. Schultze, 111 W. Va. 64, 160 S.E. 303; Bowling v. Guyan Lumber Company, 105 W. Va. 309, 143 S.E. 86; Truschel v. Rex Amusement Company, 102 W. Va. 215, 136 S.E. 30; Wilson v. West Virginia Amusement Company, 99 W. Va. 290, 128 S.E. 381; Gibbard v. Evans, 87 W. Va. 650, 106 S.E. 37; Given v. Diamond Shoe and Garment Company, 84 W. Va. 631, 101 S.E. 153; Hunt v. DiBacco, 69 W. Va. 449, 71 S.E. 584; Kennedy v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, 68 W. Va. 589, 70 S.E. 359. There is nothing to indicate that any of the elements mentioned in the rule is present in this proceeding to justify this Court in setting aside the verdict as excessive. Though the amount may be somewhat higher than this Court would be willing to award, it may not be vacated solely for that reason. Where damages are indeterminate, mere difference of opinion between the court and the jury will not justify the court in disturbing the verdict.
Given v. Diamond Shoe Co., 84 W. Va. 631, 101 S.E. 153. The only limitation which the law imposes is that the damages be fairly compensatory and not such as to show partiality, prejudice or misconduct upon the part of the jury. Gibbard v. Evans, 87 W. Va. 650, 106 S.E. 37; Bowling v. Guyan Lumber Co., 105 W. Va. 309, 143 S.E. 86. In a personal injury case no rule of law fixes the measure of damages; the law leaves the amount of damages for tort to the sound discretion of the jury.
Reilly v. Nicoll, 72 W. Va. 189, 77 S.E. 897. The fact that plaintiff misrepresented his age to defendant does not preclude his recovery. Norman v. Coal Co., 68 W. Va. 405, 69 S.E. 857; Blankenship v. Coal Co., 69 W. Va. 74, 70 S.E. 863; Bowling v. Lbr. Co., 105 W. Va. 309, 311, 143 S.E. 86. Section 74a provides how an employer should proceed with a child desiring employment, who represents his age to be sixteen years or over. Perceiving no error prejudicial to defendant, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
In an action for personal injuries, the amount of damage recoverable is generally left to the discretion of the jury, "and the only limitation which the law imposes is that such damage be fairly compensatory and not such as to show partiality, prejudice or misconduct on their part." Bowling v. Guyan Lumber Company, 105 W. Va. 309; Looney v. Norfolk Western Railway Company, 102 W. Va. 40. Affirming a judgment for $53,750.00 for the death of a locomotive engineer, in the latter case, this Court stated: "Can we properly say, in the absence of any other elements affecting plaintiff's right, that the verdict was influenced by bias, prejudice, partiality, or corruption on the part of the jury, or was it based on some wrong theory or in violation of some rule of law? Unless we can so find from the record, our decisions and many others say we should not invade the province of the jury in their right to fix the amount of such indeterminate damages. Among these are: Normile v. Wheeling Tract. Co., 57 W. Va. 132; Gibbard v. Evans, 87 W. Va. 650; Corrick v. Western Md. Ry. Co., 79 W. Va. 592, 91 S.E. 458; Holt v. Otis Elevator Co., 78 W. Va. 785, 90 S.E. 334, (Syl. 5).