A'ENO v. Lowry

116 N.W.2d 730, 367 Mich. 657, 1962 Mich. LEXIS 458

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Decided: September 10, 1962
• Docket: Docket 48, Calendar 49,156
• Status: Published

Opinions

Adams, J.

This action arises out of an accident that occurred on March 6, 1959. Plaintiff was driving north on US-10. The highway was icy. Defendant John Francis Lowry was proceeding south. Lowry’s car went out of control, careened across-the highway, and struck plaintiff’s automobile. Plaintiff sued, claiming some permanent disability in her hand and arm, pain and suffering, and necessary treatment by 4 doctors at an expense of $579.25. The jury brought in a verdict for $500.

Plaintiff contends that a new trial should be granted because the verdict is grossly inadequate. If a new trial is granted, plaintiff claims it should be restricted to the question of her damages.

Following the accident, plaintiff was taken to a hospital. She was released the same day and returned to work 10 days later. Dr. Cullen treated the plaintiff for 2 or 3 days. An X ray of her neck disclosed no fracture. He described her injury as a “sacroiliac strain” and on March 30, 1959, he wrote-evaluating her condition as “disability lasting 2 weeks.” Plaintiff continued to receive some treatment for the next 3 or 4 months. She complained of headaches.

Plaintiff had been selling real estate. In June, she-shifted to the sale of automobiles because this job-would not require as much driving or standing. In the fall of the year she went to New Orleans where-she was employed as the manager of a bar. In November and December she paid 3 visits to a doctor. Two X rays were taken.

In the spring of 1960 it appears that she had some-difficulty with her hand and arm. She thought that it was from holding a telephone in her hand too much. She received further medical treatment.

Doctors Joseph C. Cullen, Lewis Cohen, and Edward M. Gates testified with regard to plaintiff’s injuries. Dr. Cullen could not recall that plaintiff had ever mentioned to him any difficulty with her fingers or her elbow. Plaintiff exhibited her hands to the jury. Dr. Cohen, while attributing her disability to injuries to the neck, testified that the X rays of the neck showed no fractures and no definite abnormalities. He stated that if scar tissue were to develop, which in turn would affect the arm and hand, this would normally occur within a period of 3 months of the injury. Dr. Gates was unable to associate the injury to the arm and hand with the injury to the neck. He found no limitation of motion or other objective finding of injury.

The verdict is less than the total claimed for medical bills but on the basis of the testimony, the jury might properly have concluded that all of the medical bills were not for treatment of injuries received by plaintiff in the automobile accident. Other claimed financial losses were not clearly made out. Plaintiff does not appear to have suffered any loss of earnings, except for a 10-day period immediately following the accident. She undoubtedly experienced some pain and suffering.

The situation in the present case differs from the situation in Fordon v. Bender, 363 Mich 124, wherein the negligence of the defendant having been determined and the injuries having clearly flowed therefrom, this Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to recover his damages, including pain and suffering; or again from the situation in Mosley v. Dati, 363 Mich 690, wherein the jury failed to make an award for pain and suffering that was clearly a result of defendant’s negligence. In the present case, there was issue of fact as to whether or not plaintiff’s difficulty with her hand and arm was attributable to the negligence of the defendant or, occurring as it did almost a year after the accident, was from other causes and consequently not a part of her damages.

It cannot be said that the verdict of the jury is against the great weight of the evidence in this case. Under familiar rules, the matter was peculiarly one for decision by a jury. Teller v. George, 361 Mich 118; Brown v. Arnold, 303 Mich 616; Griggs v. Saginaw & F. R. Co., 196 Mich 258. The verdict of the jury and the decision of the trial judge, refusing a new trial, are affirmed. Costs to appellees.

Carr, C. J., and Dethmers, Kelly, and Souris, JJ., concurred with Adams, J.