Woodward v. Consolidated Traction Co.

Citations

• 17 Pa. Super. 576
• 1901 Pa. Super. LEXIS 359

Syllabus

<p>' Negligence — Damages—Review of discretion of lower court — New trial.</p> <p>The appellate courts have power to review the discretionary act of the trial court in refusing to grant a new trial because of the alleged inadequacy of the verdict, but this power is exceptional in character and only to be exercised in very clear cases of wrong or injustice which the court below should have remedied.</p> <p>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 an 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, and the jury had no other guide in arriving at the amount to be awarded but pure conjecture.</p> <p>The appellate court will not review the act of a trial court in refusing to grant a new trial in an accident case on account of inadequacy of the verdict, where it appears that the verdict was substantial and not merely nominal, that the plaintiff, a boy, thirteen years old, was badly hurt, was disfigured, suffered much pain and underwent several operations, that some of his minor injuries were permanent, that he was confined to his bed for about a month, and did not return to his school for about three months.</p> <p>Negligence — Street railways — Contributory negligence — Evidence—Appeals.</p> <p>In an action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from the negligence of defendant, where the verdict is in favor of the plaintiff, the exclusion of evidence which tended to show the defendant’s negligence,</p> <p>- and instructions to the effect that the plaintiff was of sufficient age and maturity to be guilty of contributory negligence, are no