Gersick v. Shilling

In Gersick v. Shilling (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 641, the jury awarded the personal injury plaintiff damages in the amount of $ 1,500, which the plaintiff argued on appeal was inadequate as a matter of law in light of her medical expenses of $ 685.50 and her wage loss of $ 3,025. (Gersick, supra, 97 Cal.App.2d at p. 645-648.) The Gersick court first noted that "the appellate court has no power to interfere except when the facts before it suggest passion, prejudice or corruption upon the part of the jury, or where the uncontradicted evidence demonstrates that the award is insufficient as a matter of law. In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, the facts on the issue of damage most favorable to the respondent must be considered. " (Id. at p. 645.) In rejecting the plaintiff's argument that the damages award was inadequate, the Gersick court further stated that "the jury was not bound by the doctors' evaluation of and the necessity for their services." (Id. at p. 648.) Also, the court determined that "as to the extent of the injuries claimed, the jury was not bound by the doctors' testimony or by that of plaintiff. The jury not only saw the plaintiff and observed her actions, but saw the X rays taken nine days after the accident, and others about a year later. They might well have found that the injuries were not as severe or as permanent as claimed. Under these circumstances, and under the rules above stated, although the award is undoubtedly small, this court cannot say that it is inadequate as a matter of law." (Id. at p. 649.)