Opinion
Opinion, November 18, 1965.
Damages. Jury.
Where jury could find that plaintiff had been involved in serious accident five months before collision with defendant, that he suffered permanent partial impairment that persisted at time of second accident and thereafter, that impact between automobiles in accident with defendant was slight, and opinion of medical expert was that second accident did not aggravate any pre-existing condition, award of $516 was not so inadequate as to make it apparent that jury acted under some bias, prejudice or improper influence or made some mistake of fact or law.
ON APPEAL.
This is an appeal by the Plaintiff in a personal injury case who received a verdict which he claims was inadequate. The damages awarded by the jury in the amount of $516 were not so inadequate as to make it apparent that the jury acted under some bias, prejudice or improper influence or made some mistake of fact or law.
Malcolm I. Berman, for Plaintiff.
Albert M. Stevens, for Defendant.
SITTING: WILLIAMSON, C.J., WEBBER, TAPLEY, MARDEN, RUDMAN, DUFRESNE, JJ.
Plaintiff on appeal asserts that a jury verdict against the defendant in the amount of $516 is so inadequate as to require a new trial on damages only. The issue is whether or not the award is so inadequate as to make it "apparent that the jury acted under some bias, prejudice, or improper influence, or have made some mistake of fact or law." Cayford v. Wilbur (1894), 86 Me. 414, 416, 29 A. 1117, 1118; Gregory v. Perry (1927), 126 Me. 99, 136 A. 354; Fotter v. Butler (1950), 145 Me. 266, 75 A.2d 160. We view the evidence as to damages in the light most favorable to the defendant as we determine whether the verdict is grossly inadequate.
The jury could find that the plaintiff had been involved in a serious accident five months before the event which gave rise to the action in the instant case; that in the prior accident he suffered a permanent partial impairment which persisted at the time of the second accident and thereafter; that the impact between the automobiles in the instant case was slight and not likely to produce the injuries subsequently claimed by plaintiff; and that the opinion of a medical witness that the second accident did not aggravate any preexisting condition was persuasive. There is no occasion to disturb the verdict.
Appeal denied.