Royal Indemnity Company v. Betty J. Magee

331 F.2d 595, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5529
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 28, 1964
Docket20864_1
StatusPublished

This text of 331 F.2d 595 (Royal Indemnity Company v. Betty J. Magee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Royal Indemnity Company v. Betty J. Magee, 331 F.2d 595, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5529 (5th Cir. 1964).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The jury awarded appellee Mrs. Magee $45,000 plus special damages for injuries received when a car driven by her husband struck a vehicle driven by one William J. Byrd as the Byrd car was making a left hand turn off a highway near New Orleans. The jury absolved Mr. Magee and held Byrd, his employer, and its insurer liable for Mrs. Magee’s injuries.

Although appellants suggest that the jury erred on the issue of responsibility for the accident, their real thrust is directed at the amount of the award in damages. They ask this court to hold that, as a matter of law, the able and experienced trial judge abused his discretion in rejecting their motion for a new trial on the ground of excessiveness of the verdict. We find that the trial court acted well within its discretion.

Mrs. Magee was four months pregnant at the time of the accident. Lacerations to her face, received in the accident, required 300 sutures. Plastic surgery has been unsuccessful in removing the scars, and Mrs. Magee has been suffering since the accident from a condition diagnosed by Dr. Gene Usdin, an eminent psychiatrist, as a “phobic and anxiety psycho-neurotic reaction” requiring “psychiatric care over a period of time.”

Appellants suggest that the amount of the award is out of line with judgments for similar injuries in Louisiana state court cases, as well as several cases in the federal courts there. While these cases are interesting, they are not controlling. Under the Seventh Amendment, a jury’s verdict stands absent reversible error, including manifest abuse of discretion. We find none here.

Affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
331 F.2d 595, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5529, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/royal-indemnity-company-v-betty-j-magee-ca5-1964.