Doolin v. Omnibus Cable Co.

Citations

• 125 Cal. 141
• 57 P. 774
• 1899 Cal. LEXIS 814

Syllabus

<p>New Tbial—Conditional Obdeb—Excessive Vebdict—Damages fob Negligence—Conflicting Evidence—In an action to recover damages for negligence, where the evidence was conflicting as to the extent of the injuries sustained at the time of the accident, which at that time appeared to be small, and as to whether distressing symptoms afterward manifested were or were not attributable to those injuries, the action of the trial court in conditionally granting a new trial for an excessive verdict of twenty thousand dollars’ damages, unless plaintiff should remit fifteen thousand dollars therefrom, is not an abuse of discretion.</p> <p>Id.—CONSTBUCTION OF CODE—“PASSION OB PBEJUDICE”—INSUFFI-CIENCY of Evidence.—In the provision of subdivision 5 of section 657 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the granting of a new trial for “excessive damages, appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice,” the only means of discovering the element of “passion or prejudice” within the meaning of the statute is by comparing the amount with the evidence before the court at the trial; and that expression is but one mode of saying that the evidence is insufficient to justify the verdict for excessive damages.</p> <p>Id.—Review upon Appeal—Conflicting Evidence—Discbetion.— The review upon appeal of the action of the trial court in granting a new trial absolutely or conditionally for excessive damages, where there is a material conflict of evidence, will be governed by the same rule as to abuse of discretion, as if the ground of the order were insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict.</p>