{ "id": 8550327, "name": "FELICIA SETZER v. GLORIA L. DUNLAP", "name_abbreviation": "Setzer v. Dunlap", "decision_date": "1974-10-16", "docket_number": "No. 7418DC717", "first_page": "362", "last_page": "363", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "23 N.C. App. 362" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "86 S.E. 1050", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1915, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1051" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "170 N.C. 365", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659292 ], "year": 1915, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "367" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/170/0365-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S.E. 2d 676", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "680" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 53", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570527 ], "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "59" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0053-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 269, "char_count": 3879, "ocr_confidence": 0.599, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.5356716915627612e-07, "percentile": 0.6719225715476076 }, "sha256": "7684ea1bbf015b886693b50498fcd7ff97e9bc0e2af88ec244b37e3267c2a195", "simhash": "1:9083692a14264db1", "word_count": 673 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:39.683180+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Parker and Vaughn concur." ], "parties": [ "FELICIA SETZER v. GLORIA L. DUNLAP" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "CAMPBELL, Judge.\nThe defendant assigns as error the action of the trial judge in setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial.\nUnder G.S. 1A-1, Rule 59(a) (6), a judge may grant a new trial to any party on the grounds that inadequate damages were awarded which appear to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice. A motion in this regard is directed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and it is established that \u201c[w]hile the necessity for exercising this discretion, in any given case, is not to be determined by the mere inclination of the judge, but by a sound and enlightened judgment in an effort to attain the end of all law, namely, the doing of even and exact justice, we will yet not supervise it, except, perhaps, in extreme circumstances, not at all likely to arise; and it is therefore practically unlimited.\u201d Goldston v. Chambers, 272 N.C. 53, 59, 157 S.E. 2d 676, 680 (1967), quoting Settee v. Electric Ry., 170 N.C. 365, 367, 86 S.E. 1050, 1051 (1915).\nWe have reviewed the record and fail to find such extreme circumstances as would render this case reviewable. Consequently, this appeal is\nDismissed.\nJudges Parker and Vaughn concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "CAMPBELL, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Clontz, Gardner and Tate by James W. Clontz for the plaintiff appellee.", "Sapp and Sapp by W. Samuel Shaffer II for the defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "FELICIA SETZER v. GLORIA L. DUNLAP\nNo. 7418DC717\n(Filed 16 October 1974)\n1. Rules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 59\u2014 inadequate damages \u2014 new trial \u2014 discretionary matter\nA judge may grant a new trial to any party on the grounds that inadequate damages were awarded which appear to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice, and a motion in this regard is directed to the sound discretion of the trial judge.\n2. Rules of Civil Procedure \u00a7 59\u2014 inadequate damages \u2014 new trial \u2014 no abuse of discretion\nThe trial court in a personal injury action did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff\u2019s motion for a new trial based on the inadequacy of damages of $126 determined by the jury.\nAppeal by defendant from Washington, Judge, 3 March 1974 Session of the General Court of Justice of Guilford County, District Court Division. This case was submitted to the Court of Appeals on 19 September 1974, pursuant to North Carolina Court of Appeals Rule 10.\nPlaintiff filed a complaint on 17 January 1974, asserting that as the result of the defendant\u2019s negligence in the operation of her car on 3 August 1973 while she was a passenger therein, she suffered personal injuries. She claimed damages of $2,240.65 of which $126.25 was for medical bills and $114.40 was for lost wages.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s evidence established that she was riding in the defendant\u2019s car; that the defendant\u2019s car was following another car; that the car in front swerved to miss a third car in the same lane; that the defendant\u2019s car collided with the rear end of the third car; that the collision caused personal injury to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff\u2019s medical bills amounted to $126.25 and that the plaintiff was out of work for fifty-two hours which, at her hourly wage of $2.20, amounted to $114.40 in lost wages. The plaintiff also put on evidence as to her continued pain and suffering.\nAfter the plaintiff rested, the case was submitted to the jury as the defendant put on no evidence. The issues were presented and answered by the jury as follows:\n\u201c(1) Was the plaintiff injured as a result of the negligence of the defendant as alleged in the plaintiff\u2019s complaint?\nAnswer: Yes.\n(2) What amount, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendant?\nAnswer: $126.00.\u201d\nAfter the return of the verdict, plaintiff moved pursuant to G.S. 1A-1, Rule 59(a) (6) and (7) that the court set aside the verdict as the damages were inadequate and that the court grant a new trial. This motion was granted by judgment filed 6 March 1974.\nThe defendant excepts and appeals.\nClontz, Gardner and Tate by James W. Clontz for the plaintiff appellee.\nSapp and Sapp by W. Samuel Shaffer II for the defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0362-01", "first_page_order": 390, "last_page_order": 391 }