DIXIE GREYHOUND LINES., INC.
v.
WOODALL
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial judge correctly charged the jury on damages and that the verdict was not excessive as a matter of law.
The case involves an appeal from a jury verdict of $20,000 in favor of the appellee. The appellant moved for a new trial, arguing the verdict was exce…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Assessment Of Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal was heard on the record, briefs, and argument of counsel for the respective parties;
And the Court being of the opinion that the Trial Judge correctly charged the jury with respect to the assessment of damages in the event its verdict was in favor of the appellee; and that in determining the pecuniary value of the life of the deceased it was only necessary for the appellee to show by his evidence such facts and data as would furnish a basis from which the jury might approximate the proper amount of damages with reasonable certainty, which burden was met by the appellee, Davidson Benedict Co. v. Severson, 109 Tenn. 572, 72 S.W. 967; Walkup v. Covington, 18 Tenn.App. 117, 73 S.W. 2d 718;
And being further of the opinion that the verdict in the sum of $20,000 was not excessive as a matter of law, taking into consideration the deceased’s age of six years, his normal health, and life expectancy of 58.92 years, the present value of the dollar, and verdicts in similar causes heretofore approved by rulings of the Tennessee Courts, Potts v. Leigh, 15 Tenn.App. 1; Walkup v. Covington, supra;
And there appearing no abuse of discretion on the part of the Trial Judge in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was excessive; Detroit Taxicab & Transfer Co., v. Pratt, 6 Cir., 2 F. 2d 193; Spero-Nelson v. Brown, 6 Cir., 175 F. 2d 86, 89; Scott v. Baltimore & Ohio Ry. Co., 3 Cir., 151 F. 2d 61, 64-65;
And the record failing to show the closing argument of appellee’s counsel, to which no objection was taken at the time, and the Court being of the opinion from the evidence shown by the record that said verdict was not the result of passion or prejudice;
It Is Ordered that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Tucker, 211 F.2d 325 (6th Cir. 1954)
-
The Kroger Co. v. Rawlings, 251 F.2d 943 (6th Cir. 1958)
Authorities Cited
- Spero-Nelson v. Brown, 175 F.2d 86 (6th Cir. 1949)
- Detroit Taxicab & Transfer Co. v. Pratt, 2 F.2d 193 (6th Cir. 1924)
- United States v. Wash. Dehydrated Food Co., 151 F.2d 61 (9th Cir. 1945)
- Scott v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 151 F.2d 61 (3d Cir. 1945)