Sebring v. Mawby

232 N.W. 194, 251 Mich. 628, 1930 Mich. LEXIS 661
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 3, 1930
DocketDocket No. 118, Calendar No. 34,938.
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 232 N.W. 194 (Sebring v. Mawby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sebring v. Mawby, 232 N.W. 194, 251 Mich. 628, 1930 Mich. LEXIS 661 (Mich. 1930).

Opinion

McDonald, J.

In an action to recover damages for injuries received when struck by the defendant’s automobile, the plaintiff received a verdict for $4,490, of which $4,000 was for pain and suffering, $390 was for hospital expense, and $100 was for *629 medical services. A motion for a new trial was made on the ground that the verdict was excessive. The motion was denied, and the defendants have brought error.

The sole question involved is whether the verdict, as to the amount allowed for pain and suffering, is excessive.

The plaintiff was 59 years of age at the time of the accident. She suffered concussion of the brain, a fracture of the hip, and what the surgeon described as “a condition to the kidney zone and some hemorrhage from this organ. ’ ’ She was in a plaster cast for eight weeks. At the time of the trial, six months after the accident, she was able to move about to a limited extent by means of crutches. The evidence shows serious and painful injuries, followed by intense suffering for a long period.

The law furnishes no exact rule by which damages for pain and suffering can be measured. Their determination must necessarily be left to the good sense and sound judgment of the jury in their view of the evidence. It has frequently been said by courts and text-writers that the award of the jury will not be disturbed unless it is so great as to shock the judicial conscience, or unless it was induced by something outside of the evidence, such as passion or prejudice. There is no claim of any such influence in this case. In view of the evidence, we cannot say that the verdict was excessive.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff.

Wiest, C. J., and Butzel, Clark, Potter, Sharpe, North, and Fead, JJ., concurred.

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

Related

Price v. High Pointe Oil Co.
817 N.W.2d 583 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2011)
Kelly v. Builders Square, Inc
632 N.W.2d 912 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2001)
Bosak v. Hutchinson
375 N.W.2d 333 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1985)
Precopio v. City of Detroit
289 N.W.2d 34 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1979)
Gibeault v. City of Highland Park
212 N.W.2d 818 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1973)
Ferretti v. Gergely
115 N.W.2d 74 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1962)
Alder v. Flint City Coach Lines, Inc.
110 N.W.2d 606 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1961)
Bishop v. Plumb
108 N.W.2d 813 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1961)
Teller v. George
104 N.W.2d 918 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1960)
Moyer v. Shampo
98 N.W.2d 631 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1959)
Bramer v. Ames
61 N.W.2d 160 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1953)
MacDonald v. Skornia
34 N.W.2d 4 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1948)
White v. Makela
8 N.W.2d 123 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1943)
Brown v. Arnold
6 N.W.2d 914 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1942)
Nezworski v. Mazanec
2 N.W.2d 912 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1942)
McDuffie v. Root
1 N.W.2d 544 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1942)
Crook v. Eckhardt
275 N.W. 739 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1937)
Meyer v. Weimaster
270 N.W. 715 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1936)
Campbell v. Brown
267 N.W. 877 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1936)
Watrous v. Conor
254 N.W. 143 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
232 N.W. 194, 251 Mich. 628, 1930 Mich. LEXIS 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sebring-v-mawby-mich-1930.