Jones MORRISON et al v. Larone LOWE et al
81-109
Supreme Court of Arkansas
December 7, 1981
625 S.W. 2d 452
GEORGE ROSE SMITH, Justice, concurring. I do not find the appellant‘s third point as troublesome as the majority opinion implies. It is virtually a physical impossibility that a bullet, traveling at several hundred feet a second, could have picked up a bit of human hair, carried it through the air, and left it on a wall in such a condition that the hair could be identified. If by some miraculous chance the hair-like object could have been identified as Lloyd‘s hair, that would simply have corroborated Lloyd‘s statement and have been of no benefit to the defendant. If the objeсt could not have been identified, that would have been the natural and inevitable expectancy, again with no benefit to the defendant. Thus the trial court‘s denial of a mistrial was so clearly right that I think a contrary ruling would have been a gross abuse of discretion.
Honey & Rogers, by: Dаnny P. Rogers, for appellees and cross-appellants.
ROBERT H. DUDLEY, Justice. This case involves a dispute between two families who were adjoining neighbors in a rural part of Cleveland County. One of the Lowes, appellees, shot some of appellants’ hogs. That night a hеated
Appellees, in order that they may present their cross-appeal, have deliberately chosen not to quеstion the right of appellants to lodge this appeal. That issue, if it were before us, would be: Has a defendant impliedly consented to a reduced judgment and barred himself from appeal when he had previously moved in the alternative that a judgment against him be reduсed or that he be granted a new trial and the judgment was reduced?
At trial the appellants sought to prove the emotional instability of appellee Floy Lowe in 1972. Dr. Crenshaw testified that he had not seen her in 1972 but that she had been seen by his associate. He then testified from their 1972 medical records. The attorney for appellants left the subject matter of medical records, an exception under Rule 803 (4), Arkansas Uniform Rules of Evidence,
When admissible, the testimony of any witness given in any court at any former trial between the samе parties or their privies and involving the same issue or claim for relief may be proved by the duly certified transcript thereof.
Rule 801 (d) (1) (i), Arkansas Rules of Evidence, is as follows:
Statements Which are Not Hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if: (1) Prior statement by witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (i) inconsistent with his testimony and, if offered in a criminal proceeding, was given under oath and subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other prоceeding, or in a disposition [deposition], ...
The procedure of impeaching a witness by prior inconsistent statements is established by Rule 613.
If appellants were correct in their analysis, the question would be whether the former testimony can be considered to be inсonsistent with the present disavowal of memory. See Chisum v. State, 273 Ark 1, 616 S.W. 2d 728 (1981). However, we do not reach that issue for the testimony, although admitted at the first trial, was hearsay testimony and could have been excluded at the first trial. Rule 80 does not change the general rule that testimony given by a witnеss at a first trial,
On cross-appeal the Lowes contend that the trial court erred in ordering them to remit a part of their judgments. The cross-appellees, Morrisons, contend that when the Lowes accepted the reduced judgments rather than hаve a new trial, they made an election of remedies and this precludes the remittitur from being reviewed on appeal. This is a matter of first impression in Arkansas. “...[T]he general rule seems to be that, when the trial court has ruled that the amount of the verdict is excessive, but hаs permitted the plaintiff to elect between a reduction of the verdict and a new trial, a plaintiff who has elected a reduction of his verdict is bound thereby and may not appeal. ” 4 Am. Jur. 2d, Appeal and Error § 245 (1962) citing Fulton v. Ewing, 336 Mich. 51, 57 N.W. 2d 441 (1953); Sergeant v. Watson Bros. Transportation Co., 244 Iowa 185, 52 N.W. 2d 86 (1952), and Florida East Coast Railroad Co. v. Buckles, 83 Fla. 599, 92 So. 159 (1922). See also Annotation, 16 ALR 3d 1327, Party‘s Acceptance of Remittitur in Lower Court As Affеcting His Right to Complain in Appellate Court As To Amount of Damages for Personal Injury. The underlying objective of a plaintiff in accepting a judgment for a reduced amount is to avoid the delay and expense involved in an appeal. But if the defendant appeals, the objective is negated and the plaintiff is forced to undergo the delay and expense which he had hoped to avoid by accepting the lower amount. Under these circumstances it would be unfair to deny the plaintiff a review of the trial court‘s action in rеducing the damages. Plesko v. Milwaukee, 19 Wis. 2d 210, 120 N.W. 2d 130, 16 ALR 3d 1315 (1963). It would be patently unfair in this particular case where the defendant has filed a direct appeal. The effect would be to hold that the plaintiff consented to the reduced judgment and is barred from appeal while the defendant supposedly did not consent to the judgment even though he asked for it and is not barred from appeal. We choose the
The trial court‘s order of remittitur recites that “compensatory damages for Larone Lowe and Floy Edelle Lowe were not given under the influence of passion or prejudice...” but that “compensatory damages for both were excessive based on evidence presented at trial and Larone Lowe should remit his compensatory damages from $350,000 to $150,000 and Floy Lowe should remit her compensatory damages for loss of consortium from $100,000 to $30,000; otherwise a new trial would be ordered.” In his finding of fact the trial judge stated that the amount of damages is a matter of law and not a question of fact.
In the case at bar the trial court specifically found that compensatory damages were not given under the influence of passion and prejudice. Quite obviously a remittitur was not ordеred on that ground. Neither did the trial court find that the amount of damages shocked the conscience of the court. A belief by a trial court that damages are excessive is not, standing alone, a sufficient ground for ordering a reduc-
However, we sustain the trial court‘s judgment if it is right, even though the court gives the wrong reason. Moose v. Gregory, supra. We have examined the record de novo to see if the amount of the judgment shocks the conscience of this court. If we find that it does, we may order a further reduction of the judgment, see Dierks Lumber & Coal Co. v. Noles, 201 Ark. 1088, 148 S.W. 2d 650 (1941), or we may restore some or all of the original judgment. We are not bound to affirm or reverse solely on the amounts of the original and reduced judgments. We have long recognized there is no definite and satisfactory rule to mеasure compensation for pain and suffering and that the amount of damages must depend on the circumstances of each particular case. Sterling Stores Co. v. Martin, 238 Ark. 1041, 386 S.W. 2d 711 (1965). In this case Larone Lowe‘s medical bills were $6,500. He has suffered and will suffer extreme pain and mental anguish and has lost most of the use of his hands. He has lost his ability to do physical work and this disability will continue. He suffered gross and gory disfigurement to his hands when parts of both hands were blown away by high powered rifles. He lost fingers and the remaining parts of his hands are good only for a light pinching action. The original award of $350,000 to Larone Lowe was not made under the influence of passion or prejudice, nor is it so great that it shocks the conscience of the court. The order of remittitur in the case of Larone Lowe is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to reinstate the judgment.
Floy Lowe‘s recovery of $100,000 was based solely on loss of consortium. Her testimony about her loss of consortium is that her husband was hospitalized for five or six weeks and they did not sleep together for four or five months. No other proof going to a loss of consortium was in evidence and the jury could not speculate on other possible elements of damages. For example, they could not guess whether the partial loss of Larone Lowe‘s hands interfered with their conjugal relationship. There is no testimоny on this, or any other, element of damages in the loss of consortium except that they were unable to sleep together for four or five
Affirmed on direct appeal.
Reversed on cross-appeal of Larone Lowe.
Affirmed on cross-appeal of Floy Lowe.
The Chief Justice and Justices Hickman and Hays concur in part and dissent in part.
STEELE HAYS, Justice, concurring in part; dissenting in part. I agree with the majority opinion entirely up to the point of affirming the trial court‘s reduction of the amount awarded for loss of consortium and there we part company.
The same principles govern the damages awarded Mrs. Floy Lowe for her loss as govern the damages awarded to Larone Lowe for his injuries and yеt the majority opinion in effect approves one and disapproves the other with no satisfactory explanation. This action flies full in the face of
As reсently as March we reaffirmed the settled law that a jury verdict which does not shock the conscience of the court should not be reduced. Scheptman v. Thorn, 272 Ark. 70, 612 S.W. 2d 291 (1981). My conscience is not shocked in the least
Adkisson, C.J. and Hickman, J., join in this concurrence and dissent.