Miller v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co

In Miller v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 555, the plaintiff sued the defendant electric company for damages caused by an electrical shock she received while opening her mail box. At trial, the parties presented conflicting evidence on whether the shock caused the plaintiff's injuries and whether the medical expenses were reasonable. When the jury returned a general verdict awarding the plaintiff damages in the exact amount of her medical expenses, she moved for a new trial, arguing the damages were legally inadequate because they failed to compensate her for pain and suffering. (Miller, supra, 212 Cal.App.2d at pp. 556-557.) The trial court denied the new trial motion and the Miller court affirmed because the record did not show the jury awarded the plaintiff nothing for pain and suffering despite finding the defendant caused the plaintiff substantial harm. The Miller court explained, "in the face of substantial conflict in the evidence as to the extent of the injuries and as to whether the expenses were incurred as a result of the negligence complained of, the trial court was justified in denying the motion for new trial . . . . It is obvious that even though liability be established, a jury may conclude that the plaintiff has suffered little, if any, injury and may conclude that medical expenses paid were not occasioned by the fault of the defendants. Under such circumstances, it is obvious that a verdict may properly be rendered for an amount less than, or for no more than the medical expenses. . . . . . . It is not for this court to weigh the evidence. Our province goes no further than a determination that there was substantial evidence to support the verdict." (Miller, supra, 212 Cal.App.2d at pp. 559-560.)