Chestnut v. Autocar Co.

Citations

• 53 Pa. Super. 1
• 1913 Pa. Super. LEXIS 120

Syllabus

<p>Appeals — New trials — Discretion of lower court — Inadequacy of damages.</p> <p>1. No mere difference of opinion, nothing short of a clear conviction compelled by the evidence, that the jury must have been influenced by partiality, passion or prejudice, or by some misconception of the law or the evidence, will justify an appellate court in declaring that the trial court was guilty of abuse of discretion in refusing a new trial for inadequacy of damages, where neither the evidence in the particular case nor the law applicable thereto furnished any definite standard by which they might be measured, amd the jury had no other guide in arriving at the amount to be awarded but pure conjecture.</p> <p>2. Where in an action for personal injuries, the charge of the trial judge on the subject of damages is full, clear' and adequate and is not complained of, the appellate court will not consider excerpts from the charge relating to the subject of negligence and contributory negligence as grounds for reversing the judgment and granting a new trial, where it appears from the charge as a whole and the context immediately connected with the excerpts, that such excerpts could not have influenced the jury on the question of damages.</p> <p>3. Where in an action to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff’s hand the verdict is for $300 for the plaintiff, a minor, and $75.00 for his father, the appellate court will not grant a new trial on the mere ground that the trial court had abused its discretion in refusing a new trial.</p>