Seffert v. Los Angeles Transit Lines
56 Cal. 2d 498 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An appellate court will not interfere with a jury's damage award on the ground of excessiveness unless the verdict is so large that it shocks the conscience and suggests it was the result of passion, prejudice, or corruption on the part of the jury.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, a 42-year-old woman, was attempting to board a bus operated by the defendants.
- As she started to board the bus while the doors were open, the doors closed suddenly, catching her right hand and left foot.
- The bus began to move, dragging the plaintiff for some distance before she was thrown to the pavement.
- Plaintiff suffered severe, permanent, and painful injuries to her left foot, including the complete severing of main arteries and nerves, fractured bones, and extensive tissue damage.
- The injuries required nine operations, including complex skin grafts and a sympathectomy, and resulted in a permanently deformed foot, chronic pain, and the risk of future amputation.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued defendants in a state trial court for personal injuries.
- A jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, awarding her $187,903.75 in damages.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict.
- Defendants filed a motion for a new trial, asserting errors of law and excessiveness of the damage award.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motion for a new trial.
- Defendants, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a jury's damage award for personal injuries excessive as a matter of law when it is supported by the evidence and the trial court has already denied a motion for a new trial on that ground?
Opinions:
Majority - Peters, J.
No. A jury's damage award for personal injuries is not excessive as a matter of law where the trial judge has approved the award and it is not so large as to shock the conscience. The power of an appellate court to review a damage award is materially different and more limited than that of a trial court. An appellate court can only interfere if the verdict is so large that, at first blush, it shocks the conscience and suggests passion, prejudice, or corruption on the part of the jury. Here, the plaintiff's injuries were serious, painful, disabling, and permanent, and the evidence of both pecuniary loss and non-pecuniary damages (pain and suffering) supports the jury's verdict. The court also held that the defendants waived any objection to plaintiff's counsel's 'per diem' mathematical formula argument for calculating pain and suffering damages by failing to object at trial and by using a similar argument themselves.
Dissenting - Traynor, J.
Yes. The award of $134,000 for pain and suffering is so excessive it must have resulted from passion, prejudice, whim, or caprice. An award is influenced by passion or prejudice when it exceeds any amount justified by the evidence. The award for pain and suffering in this case not only exceeds the substantial pecuniary losses but is also larger than any award previously sustained in California, even for more serious injuries. This excessive award was the result of the improper 'per diem' argument by plaintiff’s counsel, which presents a misleading and conjectural mathematical formula for an element of damages that cannot be calculated with such certainty. This type of argument is an unwarranted intrusion into the domain of the jury and is prejudicial error.
Analysis:
This case establishes the highly deferential 'shocks the conscience' standard for appellate review of damage awards in California, making it very difficult to overturn a jury's verdict on grounds of excessiveness. It solidifies the principle that the trial judge, having observed the witnesses and evidence firsthand, is in the best position to assess the propriety of the award. The case is also significant for its discussion of the controversial 'per diem' argument for pain and suffering, though the majority avoids ruling on its permissibility, a question later courts would address. Justice Traynor's dissent is influential for its critique of this method and its broader commentary on the nature of pain and suffering damages in tort law.
Unlock the full brief for Seffert v. Los Angeles Transit Lines