Maxine Bryant v. James C. Mathis and Ray J. Radliff
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision. The 15 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Lester ex rel. Lester v. Dunn (D.C. Cir. 1973)
- Lawrence R. Kinsella, Stanley Dilley and Duane L. Ault v. Ralph Leonard and Quinten Kessler (10th Cir. 1969)
- Delmar R. Aylor v. Intercounty Construction Corporation (D.C. Cir. 1967)
- Harrington v. Alston (District Court, District of Columbia 1967)
- Timothy D. Rogers and Rhonda Rogers v. Gregory P. Romeri and Schneider National Carriers, Inc. (6th Cir. 1997)
- Eugene B. Kassman v. The American University. Appeal of Lloyd Ultan (D.C. Cir. 1976)
- Alva Laverne Luck and Jenell A. Baker, a Minor Child v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company (D.C. Cir. 1975)
- Cabassa v. American Union Transport, Inc. (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 1972)
- Cross v. Thompson (6th Cir. 1962)
- Stanley B. Hall v. Texas & New Orleans Ry. Co. (5th Cir. 1962)
- Cross v. Thompson (6th Cir. 1962)
- Fisher v. Small (D.C. 1960)
- Gentry v. East West Partners Club Management Co. (4th Cir. 2016)
- Baralt v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance (District Court, D. Puerto Rico 2000)
- Constance Snowden v. D. C. Transit System, Inc., and James L. Ivey (D.C. Cir. 1972)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
Appellant was one of four passengers injured in a two-car collision. Upon a consolidated trial, the jury found both drivers negligent, and awarded the four passenger-plaintiffs individual judgments totaling $41,425. Appellant’s recovery was $4,250. Believing this amount insufficient, she moved for a new trial and appeals from the denial thereof.
Her sole contention is that the verdict is inadequate as a matter of law because it did not reimburse her for all her special damages. Her medical expenses, as shown by bills and receipts received in evidence, totaled $3,367.32. Oral testimony showed an additional $40 of expense, making the total $3,407.32. The jury’s verdict thus exceeded her medical expenses by almost $850. But appellant testified that she earned “roughly twelve thousand dollars a year” and was away from work “approximately four and one-half months,” and thus claims she was entitled, as special damages, to $4,500 above her medical expenses. Although this testimony was uncontradicted, appellees did not concede either liability or the amount of damages.
Courts are understandablv re- , , ^ . , . y luctant to overturn jury verdicts on the grounds that they are inadequate or excessive. Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co., 1933, 287 U.S. 474, 53 S.Ct. 252, 77 L.Ed. 439; Frasca v. Howell, 1950, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 52, 182 F.2d 703. This is especially true of appellate courts, for motions for new trial are committed to the trial court’s discretion. Ibid. Cf. Miller v. Maryland Casualty Co., 2 Cir., 1930, 40 F.2d 463, 465. Although the jury’s verdict in this case creates some “wonderment,” Rankin v. Shayne Brothers, Inc., 1956, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 214, 215, 234 F.2d 35, 36, we cannot say that it was so arbitrary that it must be reversed as a matter of law.
Conceivably, the jury believed that appellant had been paid during her absence from work, and thus did not allow recovery for lost earnings. Al-fe was entitled to an instruction ^at,lost wages are recoverable notwithstanding compensation from a collateral source, Geffen v. Winer, 1957, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 286, 244 F.2d 375; cf. Hudson v. Lazarus, 1954, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 16, 217 F.2d 344, she requested no such in-section and none was given. On this s+íate+ °f ,the rf°[d’ say that the trial court abused its discretion m denying appellant’s motion for a new trial. On the authority of Rankin v. Shayne Brothers, Inc., supra, we affirm,
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.