From a jury verdict and judgment for the plaintiff on two causes of action arising out of an automobile accident, the plaintiff appeals, asserting inadequacy of the damages awarded and error in an instruction on damages.
Plaintiff’s first, cause of action is for personal injuries, and her second is by way of assignment from her husband for medical expenses and loss of services. Defendant’s answer admits the cоllision of September 17, 1960, and admits that the collision was caused by negligence of the defendant, but denies each and every other allegation of the plaintiff’s petition. On trial of the case, a jury verdict and judgment were rendered for $737.47 on plaintiff’s first cause of actiоn for injuries, and $762.53 on the second cause for medical expenses and loss of services, or a total sum of $1,500.
Negligence of the dеfendant in causing the accident being admitted, the trial court submitted, the two remaining issues to the jury: First, whether all or any part of the injuries and expenses claimed by the plaintiff were the proximate result of the , admitted negligence of the defendant in causing the accident; and second, a determination of the extent of such injuries and expenses, and the amount of money to be awarded for them.
The mediсal testimony in this case is in dispute. The injuries claimed by the plaintiff centered around the *838 neck and adjacent areas of the baсk. Plaintiff worked half days for a short period of time after the accident and then returned to full-time work. Examination, including X-ray, revealed an existing arthritic condition and that there were no dislocations or fractures. Whether the plaintiff suffered any limitation of motion in the affеcted areas, or if any motion caused her pain, were issues upon which the evidence was conflicting. The jury could have found widely varying answers to these questions from the plaintiff’s own medical witnesses. On the other hand, the defendant’s medical testimony negatived any finding of limitаtion of motion, muscle spasm, permanent disability, or loss of function. It also was to the effect that she was consciously controlling hеr reactions to the different tests that were given and that her complaints were of an emotional origin and not related to trauma. The testimony, both as to the extent of, and the causes of her condition, was in conflict and susceptible to widely varying inferences.
As tо the second cause of action, medical bills incurred by plaintiff were in the sum of $870 and she estimates a loss of earnings of $123.50. It is asserted thаt the fact that this evidence was undisputed binds the jury to return a larger verdict on the second cause of action. But, the jury had a right to determine what portion of her treated injuries and complaints was proximately caused by the accident. It had a right to determine what portion of her calls, examinations, and the charges incident thereto, was reasonably required on account of any injury received due to the defendant’s negligence. It might have been significant to the jury that one of the two doctors employed by the plaintiff was сonsulted almost two years after the accident.
An admission of liability for an accident does not constitute an admission that all damages claimed by the plaintiff, even though undisputed in the record, were the proximate result of the accident. A verdict and judgment will not be sеt aside as inadequate unless
*839
they are clearly wrong and so against the weight and reasonableness of the evidence as to indiсate they were the result of passion, prejudice, or mistake. Cover v. Platte Valley Public Power & Irr. Dist.,
Plaintiff contends there was errоr in instruction No. 4 given by the trial court on its own motion. In this instruction, the court submitted, as to both causes of action, the issues of whether the plaintiff sustаined injuries as a proximate result of the accident, and “the amount in money” of the loss thus sustained. The instruction requires the plaintiff to establish these elements by a preponderance of the evidence, and requires a verdict for the defendant in the event of failurе to meet the stated burden of proof. The plaintiff argues prejudicial error in permitting the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. Both рroximate cause and the amount and nature of the damages were issues in this case. Failure to meet the requisite burden of proоf would require a verdict for the defendant. In a similar situation in Cover v. Platte Valley Public Power & Irr. Dist., supra, the negligence of the defendant was detеrmined as a matter of law. In response to a contention that the defendant was liable as a matter of law, the court said as fоllows: “But, contrary to the plaintiff’s present contention, the plaintiff was not relieved from *840 the burden of proving that his damages were prоximately caused by the negligence of the defendant, and the amount of the damages.” We note further that there was a verdict for the plaintiff here in this case on both causes of action. Implicit in the verdict on the separate causes of action was a finding that the burden of proof as to proximate cause had been met as to some of the damages claimed by the plaintiff, but not as to all of the damages which the testimony supported. The contention as to adequacy is without merit.
Plaintiff contends error in the cоurt’s instruction No. 4 by putting the burden on the plaintiff to prove
“the amount in money
of the loss and damage thus sustained by the plaintiff.” It is asserted there is no burden to provе in money, or in dollars and cents, the value of her pain and suffering. Such a fragmentary and literal interpretation of “amount in money” is not рermissible. Instructions to- a jury should be considered as a whole, and the meaning of an instruction or instructions when taken as a whole, and not the phraseology of any particular portion, is the important consideration. Hiner v. Nelson,
The assigned errors of inadequacy of the verdict.and error in instruction No. 4 are without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.