providing that "[t]he initial inquiry, in reviewing an award of general damages, is whether the trier of fact abused its discretion in assessing the amount of damages. Only after a determination that the trier of fact has abused its `much discretion' is a resort to prior awards appropriate, and then only for the purpose of determining the highest or lowest point which is reasonably within that discretion."
How later courts described this case
- providing that "[t]he initial inquiry, in reviewing an award of general damages, is whether the trier of fact abused its discretion in assessing the amount of damages. Only after a determination that the trier of fact has abused its `much discretion' is a resort to prior awards appropriate, and then only for the purpose of determining the highest or lowest point which is reasonably within that discretion."
- emphasizing "the importance of deferring to the trier of fact's findings, 'as the trier of fact is not disadvantaged by the review of a cold record,' and 'is in a superior position to observe the nuances of demeanor evidence not revealed in a record' "
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HUGHES, J.,
dissenting.
| ,With respect, the majority opinion ignores the physical evidence, the expert testimony, the eye-witness testimony, and the laws of physics.