176 P. 690 | Cal. | 1918
This is an appeal from a judgment rendered against the defendants Simona Bradbury, incompetent, and Lewis Bradbury, for damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff by the falling of a passenger elevator in a building owned by the defendant, Simona Bradbury. The same accident is referred to inCampbell v. Bradbury, ante, p. 364, [
Defendants complain of an instruction substantially the same as that given on the measure of damages in the case *378
of Storrs v. Los Angeles Traction Co.,
Defendants offered an instruction predicated upon the theory that the damages suffered by the plaintiff were in part the result of malpractice by the physician who had her case in charge. There was no evidence or pleading upon which such an instruction could properly be based, and therefore no error in its refusal.
It is claimed that the verdict and judgment for $17,354.80 was excessive. The amount which would compensate the plaintiff for the injuries received by her was to be decided by the jury under proper instructions from the court, and subject to the wide discretion vested in a trial court to grant a new trial where in its opinion, considering the weight of the evidence, the verdict was excessive. The trial court by its refusal to grant a new trial has left the defendants to such remedies as they may have in this court for an excessive verdict. Here it is assumed that the verdict is based upon the testimony most favorable to the plaintiff and all the inferences most favorable to her to be drawn therefrom.
The plaintiff, an attractive young woman, twenty-five years of age, a student of law, was so permanently crippled in the left foot and ankle that she will never be able to walk without a limp. Her spine between the neck and middle of the waist is permanently injured, so that at the time of the *379 trial she was unable to occupy an ordinary chair, but spent most of her time in a Morris chair. Her nervous system is permanently impaired. Extensive atrophy of the muscles of the back already exists and is increasing and will continue to increase. Without stating in further detail the nature and character of the injuries, we cannot say, as a matter of law, that the verdict of the jury is so disproportionate to the injuries as to justify the interference of this court.
The incompetent is liable for the injuries received by the plaintiff from the negligent operation of the elevator. (Campbell v. Bradbury, ante, p. 364, [
Judgment affirmed.
Lorigan, J., and Melvin, J., concurred.
Hearing in Bank denied.
Sloss, J., Melvin, J., Wilbur, J., and Richards, J., protem., concurred.