Drinking a bottle of Coca-Cola, which was appellant’s produсt, respondent got into his mouth a decomposed cockroach. He removed it and spat out such of the drink as remained in his mоuth. He immediately became nauseated, went to his home two blоcks away and vomited. His wife dosed him with peptobismuth which did not relievе him/ and he set out alone to find a doctor. He had no teleрhone and his wife could not accompany him because she was keeping their baby. He went to the offices of three doсtors but it was late in the afternoon and none was in. Making the rounds of the offices, he vomited again. He returned to his home and was unablе to eat, but later went to work on his job as foreman on the night shift of а textile mill. He explained in testimony that he worked because he “had to” as the plant was short one experienced forеman. The next day was Saturday and he did not work that night, but returned to work at Sundаy midnight. He and his wife testified that he was unwell during the whole weekend and up until thе time of the trial he still became sick at the thought of drinking a Cocа-Cola.
*428 This action for $3,000.00 actual and punitive damages was brought upon a cоmplaint in which numerous specifications of negligence of аppellant were alleged, but only that with respect to violаtion of the Pure Food Act, particularly Sec. 32-1520 of the Code оf 1952, was submitted to the jury, which returned verdict of $500.00 actual damages for respondent. Appellant made the usual defensive motions befоre and after verdict which were overruled, except the court eliminated the issue of punitive damages from the consideration of the jury. This appeal followed.
There are numerous exceptions but appellant has simplified the appeal by stating two questions in its brief. The first is, “Did the plaintiff show, by the greater weight or preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant was guilty of negligence?” It is not a proper question upon appeal from a verdict and judgment in a case at law, which this is. This court does not consider the weight of the evidence in such an appeal. We are without jurisdiction to do so. Constitution of 1895, Art. 5, Sec. 4. Decisions collected in 3 S. C. Dig., Appeal and Error, Key No. 1003, p. 535. Reversаl of verdict for plaintiff in a.law case upon consideratiоn of the evidence can only result when we conclude that the only reasonable inference from the evidence is cоntrary to the factual finding which is implicit in the verdict, whereby it becomes a matter of law; and the above quoted question does not sо contend — it does not purport to make the point.
By its other question appellant contends that the verdiet was excessivе because respondent incurred no medical expensеs and lost no time from his work. This was included in appellant’s motion for nеw trial, and overruled by the lower court which alone had jurisdiction to reduce the verdict by rireans of an order for new trial
nisi.
We agrеe with the trial court and we cannot reverse on this ground in view of the sickness and suffering of respondent. Certainly it cannot be said that thе amount of the verdict indicates passion, prejudice, caprice or other consideration
*429
not founded upon the evidence, which would be necessary for reversal. 3 S. C. Dig., Appeal and Error, Key No. 1004, p. 537.
Cf. Nelson v. C. & W. C. Ry. Co.,
S. C,
Affirmed.