| Venue: | CA SC |
| Facts: | Seffert is trying to enter a bus when its door shuts on her and it takes off. She is dragged and thrown, and receives an amazingly severe foot injury: more trouble than you might have thought possible. |
| Posture: | Verdict for the plaintiff at trial, $187K in damages. Motion for new trial for errors of law and excessiveness denied. Appeal. |
| Issue: | Were there prejudicial errors, and was the verdict excessive? |
| Holding: | No and no. Affirmed. |
| Rule: | An appellate court will only interfere on the grounds that a judgment is excessive if it's so large that at first blush it shocks the conscience, and suggests passion, prejudice, or corruption on the part of the jury. |
| Reasoning: | The evidence supports the plaintiff's version of the facts. And her
injuries were severe: she'll suffer pain for life, and lots more
surgical procedures. There's an emotional cost as well.
We make presumptions in favor of the trial court's decisions. |
| Dicta: | Traynor (dissenting): a reviewing court has responsibilities not only to the litigants, but also to future cases. And there's never going to be an amount of money that rational people would accept in exchage for some horrible injury. Also, the per diem argument is misleading. |