McElrath v. Fall

191 P. 398, 111 Wash. 438, 1920 Wash. LEXIS 644
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 8, 1920
DocketNo. 15759
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 191 P. 398 (McElrath v. Fall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McElrath v. Fall, 191 P. 398, 111 Wash. 438, 1920 Wash. LEXIS 644 (Wash. 1920).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Respondent recovered a verdict for $5,134.25, as ’ compensation for personal injuries received by her when she was struck by an automobile owned by appellant. On motion for a new trial, the court reduced this verdict to $3,000, giving the respondent the alternative of remitting to that amount or submitting to a new trial. Respondent filed the remission.

The appellant’s only point upon this appeal is that the verdict as it now stands is still excessive, being arrived at through passion and prejudice: An examination of the record does not justify this court in inter[439]*439fering with the verdict as finally approved by the trial judge.

The respondent suggests that she should be allowed the amount awarded by the jury. Having voluntarily agreed to the remission fixed by the trial court, she is now in no position to urge that the amount of the original verdict be taken as the amount of the final judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Ruckles
83 Fla. 599 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1922)
Martin v. Jansen
193 P. 674 (Washington Supreme Court, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
191 P. 398, 111 Wash. 438, 1920 Wash. LEXIS 644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcelrath-v-fall-wash-1920.