Coleman v. Galvin

Plaintiffs, who are husband and wife, sought damages for personal injuries sustained when the automobile

The record discloses that the defense in the trial court was assumed by counsel chosen by defendant’s insurance carrier. After taking the appeal, the insurance carrier served and filed a “Notice of Deposit and Settlement and Tender.” The carrier gave notice thereby that it deemed it inexpedient to proceed further with the appeal and gave notice of its deposit in a bank and its tender of approximately $1-2,000 to meet its obligations up to the limits of its policy. Partial satisfaction of judgment was entered for the amount received by plaintiffs and the appeal was thereafter prosecuted by counsel chosen by defendant personally.

The sole contention of defendant on this appeal is that the judgment should be reversed because the damages awarded were excessive. It is therefore unnecessary to set forth the facts surrounding the happening of the accident except insofar as such facts may throw light upon plaintiffs’ injuries. It is sufficient to state that the evidence showed that defendant drove his automobile in such manner and at such speed as to cause a head-on collision with plaintiffs’ automobile thereby hurling the latter backwards for a distance of forty feet from the point of impact. Plaintiffs’ bodies were thrown about in their car with such force as to bend metal parts and to smash the windshield. The front seat was “jarred loose” and the steering post and wheel were “all bent out of shape.” This evidence, showing the terrific force of the impact, was no doubt considered by the jury, together with the medical testimony, in determining the extent and severity of plaintiffs’ injuries including nervous shock.

At the time of the accident, Mr. Coleman was a man 62 years of age. He was in good physical condition except for some difficulty which he had experienced with angina pectoris. This had been brought under control by the usual methods and he had actively engaged in business and also in sports such as golf, riding horses, fishing and hunting. Mr. and Mrs. Coleman were engaged in the photography business, which business had been built up over the years to the point where it produced a net income of $50,000 per year. They had studios in San Francisco and Sacramento and they employed

Defendant makes much of the fact that there were no serious fractures of the bones in plaintiffs’ bodies. He also calls attention to the fact that the remaining signs of the injuries at the time of trial, which was held one year later, were largely subjective rather than objective. Prom these facts he argues that only very small awards would have been justified and that the actual awards were therefore excessive. While the facts to which defendant refers have some significance, they are not conclusive. As we said in Taylor v. Lowenstein, 113 Cal.App. 665 at page 668 [ 298 P. 847 ], “Counsel for appellant calls our attention to the fact that the only objective signs of the injuries at the time of the trial were certain scars which were not prominent, and that everything else was subjective. Even though this be conceded, it does not follow that the judgment should be set aside as excessive. Medical science and human experience teach us that the extent of personal injuries cannot be measured solely by objective signs. Injuries of traumatic origin may leave few, if any, outward signs and yet a severe concussion of the brain or injury to the nervous system may result in far greater and more lasting pain and disability than do many types of injuries which are plainly visible. As was said in Johnson v. Pearson, 100 Cal.App. 503 at page 507 [ 280 P. 394 , 396] : ‘It is also a fact, well within human experience, that suffering from the disruption of the nervous system of the human body

In the light of what has been said, we turn first to a consideration of the damages 'sustained .by Mr. Coleman as a result of his injuries. While both parties were severely bruised and lacerated and were hospitalized and treated for varying lengths of time, .we shall discuss only the more serious injuries. Among the serious injuries suffered by Mr. Coleman were a damaging concussion of the brain together with severe nervous shock. These injuries resulted in nervousness, irritability, sleeplessness, inability to concentrate, forgetfulness, loss of memory, inability to work for any length of time and quick fatigue followed by “blinding, staggering” headaches and pains in the back of the neck which were relieved only by rest. It appeared that these resulting conditions were getting progressively worse. Mr. Coleman attempted to resume work on a part time basis some time after the accident but was unable to continue. During the months of May and June, 1943, he went to his studios not more than three times and in the four succeeding months, which immediately preceded the trial, he was unable to work at all. In addition, Mr. Coleman sustained a jagged laceration of the left forehead with arterial bleeding, which laceration was stitched but thereafter became infected leaving a large scar. He also sustained a fractured rib with a permanent nodule on his body at the site of the fracture, which nodule was about the size of the body of a mouse. There was abundant testimony of an entire change of Mr. Coleman’s personality ■ following the accident. He had lost twenty pounds in weight. There was also testimony that Mr. Coleman’s heart condition had been aggravated by his injuries. The jury was,, entitled to conclude from the testimony that the injuries which he received in the accident were serious and permanent in nature and that he would be prevented thereby from resuming his normal activities even on a very limited basis for at least some time to come. Defendant does not seriously question the testimony concerning Mr. Coleman’s condition at the time of the trial but he argues that this condition was attributable to his age and preexisting heart condition rather than to the injuries sustained in the accident. Suffice- it to say that there was ample evidence to show that, the serious condition which developed after the accident ,was the result of the injuries sustained.

The foregoing presents a brief summary of the testimony relating to the injuries and disabilities resulting from the accident but we believe such summary is adequate for the purposes of this discussion with the additional observation that it appeared that plaintiffs had sustained special damages in the sum of approximately $2,000. From what has been said it appears that the jury could have properly concluded that plaintiffs had suffered serious injuries; that some of said injuries were of a permanent nature; that said injuries had greatly disabled' plaintiffs during the year following the aeci

The rule governing appellate courts in such cases was clearly stated in the early case of Morgan v. Southern Pacific Co., 95 Cal. 501 [ 30 P. 601 ] in which a judgment of $15,000 was affirmed despite the facts that “no bones were broken, and there was but little external evidence of injury.” As was said in that case at page 508, “The great difficulty in the present ease is determining the extent of plaintiff’s injuries— or rather, what conclusion the jury had the right to arrive at from the evidence as to the extent of those injuries.” The court quoted the rule, as stated in the earlier case of Aldrich v. Palmer, 24 Cal. 513 , where it was said that a judgment should not be disturbed on appeal “unless the amount of the damages is obviously so disproportionate to the injury proved as to justify the conclusion that the verdict is not the result of the cool and dispassionate consideration of the jury. ’ ’ The same rule, in somewhat different words, is stated in the late case of Koyer v. McComber, 12 Cal.2d 175 [ 82 P.2d 941 ], where the court said at page 182, that the judgment should not be disturbed on appeal “except upon a showing that it is so grossly disproportionate to any reasonable view of the evidence as to raise a strong presumption that it is based upon prejudice or passion.”

Defendant cites numerous cases but we find none of the cited cases controlling here as each case must stand upon its own particular facts as disclosed by the evidence. Said cases may be distinguished on one or more of the following grounds: That no serious injury had been sustained; that little, if any, hospitalization or treatment had been required; that no further treatment would be required in the future; that only slight, temporary disability had resulted; and that little or no permanent disability or loss of earning capacity had been shown. Under the rules stated in the authorities cited above, we are of the opinion the jury’s awards in the present case cannot be disturbed on this appeal.

The judgment is affirmed.

Nourse, P. J., and Goodell, J. pro tern., concurred.