Opinion
Jan. 23, 1973.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Vernon K. Sessions, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Wood, Ris & Hames, Eugene S. Hames, Denver, for defendants-appellees.
DWYER, Judge.
Plaintiff George Guiterrez brought this action to recover damages he sustained when the automobile he was driving was struck in the rear by a vehicle owned by defendant Globe Truck Lines, Inc., and driven by defendant Robert D. Hobbs. Plaintiff Ilene R. Guiterrez sought to recover damages for loss of consortium. The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict for plaintiff George Guiterrez and assessed damages in the amount of $1,000. A verdict was also returned in favor of plaintiff Ilene Guiterrez, and her damages were assessed at '-0-.' The plaintiffs have appealed the judgments entered on the verdicts and contend on appeal that the verdicts are inadequate as a matter of law and seek a new trial on the issue of damages. We affirm.
There is a dispute in the evidence concerning all of the injuries and damages which Guiterrez and his wife claimed. Plaintiff George Guiterrez testified that prior to the accident he was employed as a truck driver-helper and had worked continuously for a long period of time. He testified that his health was good and that he had never suffered any disability or inability to carry out the duties of his employment prior to the accident. He testified that he had been unable to work after the accident.
Several medical experts were called to testify for the plaintiffs. An osteopathic physician and a specialist in neurological surgery testified that plaintiff George Guiterrez had sustained an aggravation to a pre-existing arthritic condition in his neck and lower back and that he was permanently disabled. The neurological surgeon testified that surgery would be necessary. A psychiatrist testified that plaintiff was suffering from a post-traumatic neurosis, conversion reaction. The defendant called only one witness, a specialist in neurological surgery, who testified that George Guiterrez had sustained a cervical sprain in the accident but that he had suffered no aggravation of the pre-existing arthritic condition and had no permanent disability. It was his opinion that plaintiff was able to go to work. Although the plaintiff claimed that he incurred $929 in medical expenses as a result of the accident, the necessity of this expenditure was disputed by the defendants.
In cases involving the question of inadequacy of damages, the reviewing court must view the record in the light most favorable to the defendant. Cottingham v. Star Bus Line, 152 Colo. 188, 381 P.2d 25. The jury is clothed with wide discretion in fixing the amount of damages. The verdict of a jury in a personal injury action should not be set aside on the ground of inadequacy unless, under the evidence, it can be definitely said that the verdict is grossly and manifestly inadequate, or unless the amount of the verdict is so small as to indicate clearly and definitely that the jury neglected to take into consideration all of the evidence pertaining to the damages sustained by the injured party, or unless the verdict amount indicates that the jury was influenced either by prejudice, passion, or other improper considerations. Preuss v. Schoonover, 154 Colo. 531, 391 P.2d 880; Bigler v. Richards, 151 Colo. 325, 377 P.2d 552; Lehrer v. Lorenzen, 124 Colo. 17, 233 P.2d 382.
The verdict of $1,000 returned by the jury is not, under the evidence in the record, so small as to indicate that the jury neglected the evidence or that the verdict was a product of prejudice or passion, and it is not inadequate as a matter of law. The jury was entitled to accept the testimony of the defendants' medical witness, and the verdict returned is consistent with the testimony of the defendants' doctor.
The verdict in favor of Mrs. Guiterrez on her claim for loss of consortium is not inconsistent with the award of no damages. See Roth v. Stark Lumber Co., Colo.App., 500 P.2d 145. Although the jury evidently found that defendants were liable for any loss suffered by Mrs. Guiterrez, it was entitled, under the evidence, to find that she had proved no measurable damages.
Judgment affirmed.
COYTE and SMITH, JJ., concur.