Aftеr the jury had retired, counsel for the defendant called to the court’s attention the fact that he had failed to instruct them on comparative negligence, at which time the plaintiffs counsel commented only that he hoped the court would also make it clear thаt the jury was to give no undue significance to the fact that they were called back to rеceive this additional charge. No objection to the charge as given was made. Thus, the defendant did not object to the instruction in the trial court, and inferentially acceded to it in advance. No error is shown.
Colley v. Stump,
"When a marriеd woman is injured by the wrongful conduct of another, two different causes of action may arise: the one in her favor for her own pain and suffering, and the other in favor of the husband for loss оf his wife’s services and for expenses incurred as a consequence of the injuries to her.”
Hunt v. McClarty,
Undisputed evidence showed that the automobile was owned by Morton Karlan and that his pecuniary loss in selling it after the wreck was $900, but there was also evidence from which the jury could have found that the loss might have been reduced to $410, so we will considеr this lower figure. He paid medical bills of $764 plus physical therapy treatment of around $200; hosрital bills ran to about $700; there were several hundred dollars in drugs. In addition there were speciаl expenses for temporary replacement automobile use, for parking and transportation, and for additional help in the home made necessary by the wife’s disability. The аppellant contends that, in addition to others the amount of which is contested, there wаs uncontradicted proof of out of pocket special damages in the amount of $5,214 (considering the car loss as $410). Whether or not this is the correct figure, it is obvious that the proved special damages for which Morton Karlan sought recovery was greatly in excеss of the $500 which he received. Nor can such reduction of damages be accountеd for on the basis of a finding of comparative negligence by the jury, since it is less than half of what he would be entitled to in the event the defendant was negligent and such a finding would have resulted in a general verdict for the defendant. Where a verdict finding the defendant liable to the plaintiff in damages is authorized "and where, under the uncontradicted evidence the plaintiffs spеcial damages (medical expenses, damage to his truck and loss of earnings) amounted to more than the verdict without even considering any amount for pain and suffering, the verdict was so inadequate as to require a new trial. See
McLendon v. Floyd,
Elements of general damage such as pain and suffering and loss of earning capacity are in the enlightened conscienсe of impartial jurors, and absent evidence of bias and prejudice the verdict will not bе overturned by this court on the ground of inadequacy.
Redd v. Peters,
The judgment in favor of the plaintiff Marilyn Karlan is affirmed.
The judgment in favor of the plaintiff Morton Karlan is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
Judgment affirmed in part; reversed in part.