Hornsby v. Davis

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hornsby v. Davis

145 S.E.2d 633, 112 Ga. App. 419, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 723

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 22, 1965

Docket41534

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 145 S.E.2d 633 (Hornsby v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hornsby v. Davis, 145 S.E.2d 633, 112 Ga. App. 419, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 723 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Hall, Judge.

The defendant assigns error on the judgment of the trial court granting the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. The ground upon which the court granted a new trial was that the verdict for $1.00 in favor of the plaintiff, was so small and grossly inadequate as to justify the inference of gross mistake or undue bias. This ground is not specifically provided for in the Georgia Code (Code Title 70). Code § 70-208 provides: “In all applications for a new trial on other grounds, not provided for in this Code, the presiding judge must exercise a sound legal discretion in granting or refusing the same according to the provisions of the common law and practice of the courts.”

“The broad discretion of the jury as to the amount of damages is not a limitation on the discretion of the trial judge to set aside the verdict when he thinks it unfair, unjust, contrary to the evidence, excessive, or too small; but is a persuasive influence not lightly to be disregarded . . . The trial judge is not to substitute his opinion for that of the jury, but merely sends the case for the opinion of another jury.” Holland v. Williams, 3 Ga. App. 636, 638 (60 SE 331); Smith v. Maddox-Rucker Banking Co., 8 Ga. App. 288 (68 SE 1092); Smith v. Maddox-Rucker Banking Co., 135 Ga. 151 (68 SE 1031); accord Southern R. Co. v. Miller, 3 Ga. App. 410, 412 (59 SE 1115). “The determination of the question, as to whether a verdict for damages is inadequate in the legal sense, lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, which will be interfered with by the appellate court only in case of a manifest abuse of discretion.” Brown *420 v. Service Coach Lines, 71 Ga. App. 437, 446 (31 SE2d 236); Lawson v. Lawson, 61 Ga. App. 787 (7 SE2d 603); Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Stephens, 14 Ga. App. 173 (80 SE 516); Duffield v. Tobin, 20 Ga. 428; Morrison v. Latimer, 59 Ga. 880 (1). Since the evidence in this case was in conflict on the question of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages and no particular verdict was demanded as a matter of law, it cannot be said that the trial court erred in granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict was so small and grossly inadequate as to justify the inference of gross mistake or undue bias.

Argued September 14, 1965 Decided September 22, 1965 Rehearing denied October 5, 1965. Gambrell, Harlan, Bussell •& Moye, Edward W. Killorin, David A. Handley, for plaintiff in error. B.ruce B. Edwards, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hall, Judge.

The defendant assigns error on the judgment of the trial court granting the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. The ground upon which the court granted a new trial was that the verdict for $1.00 in favor of the plaintiff, was so small and grossly inadequate as to justify the inference of gross mistake or undue bias. This ground is not specifically provided for in the Georgia Code (Code Title 70). Code § 70-208 provides: “In all applications for a new trial on other grounds, not provided for in this Code, the presiding judge must exercise a sound legal discretion in granting or refusing the same according to the provisions of the common law and practice of the courts.”

“The broad discretion of the jury as to the amount of damages is not a limitation on the discretion of the trial judge to set aside the verdict when he thinks it unfair, unjust, contrary to the evidence, excessive, or too small; but is a persuasive influence not lightly to be disregarded . . . The trial judge is not to substitute his opinion for that of the jury, but merely sends the case for the opinion of another jury.” Holland v. Williams, 3 Ga. App. 636, 638 (60 SE 331); Smith v. Maddox-Rucker Banking Co., 8 Ga. App. 288 (68 SE 1092); Smith v. Maddox-Rucker Banking Co., 135 Ga. 151 (68 SE 1031); accord Southern R. Co. v. Miller, 3 Ga. App. 410, 412 (59 SE 1115). “The determination of the question, as to whether a verdict for damages is inadequate in the legal sense, lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, which will be interfered with by the appellate court only in case of a manifest abuse of discretion.” Brown *420 v. Service Coach Lines, 71 Ga. App. 437, 446 (31 SE2d 236); Lawson v. Lawson, 61 Ga. App. 787 (7 SE2d 603); Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Stephens, 14 Ga. App. 173 (80 SE 516); Duffield v. Tobin, 20 Ga. 428; Morrison v. Latimer, 59 Ga. 880 (1). Since the evidence in this case was in conflict on the question of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages and no particular verdict was demanded as a matter of law, it cannot be said that the trial court erred in granting a new trial on the ground that the verdict was so small and grossly inadequate as to justify the inference of gross mistake or undue bias.

Argued September 14, 1965 Decided September 22, 1965 Rehearing denied October 5, 1965. Gambrell, Harlan, Bussell •& Moye, Edward W. Killorin, David A. Handley, for plaintiff in error. B.ruce B. Edwards, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

Bell, P. J., and Frankum, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 S.E.2d 633, 112 Ga. App. 419, 1965 Ga. App. LEXIS 723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hornsby-v-davis-gactapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack