# Mo. Pac. Trans. Co. v. Miller

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · February 11, 1957 · 227 Ark. 351

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9664488

## Case

- **Full name:** Missouri Pacific Transportation Company v. Miller
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** February 11, 1957
- **Citations:** 227 Ark. 351; 299 S.W.2d 41; 1957 Ark. LEXIS 322
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by McFaddin
- **Judges:** Robinson, Ward, Holt, Millwee, McFaddin
- **Cited by:** 51 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9664488

## Opinion text

Ed. P. McFaddin, Associate Justice, (concurring- and dissenting). I agree with all of the majority opinion except that part which relates to the damages; and on the matter of damages I entertain these views:
I. Consortium. I cannot agree to Mrs. Miller’s recovering for loss of consortium. We have no statute in Arkansas allowing for such a recovery. The majority concedes that it is proceeding under the judge-made law in the case of Hitaffer v. Argonne Co., 183 P. 2d 811 . Until the Legislature of Arkansas passes a statute allowing for consortium, then I cannot agree to the consortium portion of the majority opinion. Judge Holt has gone into the matter in detail in his dissent, and I concur in his conclusions.
II. Excessiveness of Miller Verdict. The majority has seen fit to reduce from $100,000.00 to $75,000.00 the jury verdict awarded Mr. Miller. I cannot say that the verdict is excessive. This Court should reduce a jury verdict only when the amount is so grossly excessive as to shock the conscience of the Court. When we take the testimony supporting Mr. Miller’s recovery at its strongest probative force, I maintain that the award is not excessive. The majority says that Mr. Miller is totally and permanently disabled. He has 27 years of expectancy and could have earned in that period of time $77,200.00, even at his present earning capacity; and there is nothing to show that he could not have earned much more in the years to come. In addition to his earning capacity, he has had conscious pain and suffering of a tremendous amount. I quote this portion of the majority opinion:
“As a result of his injuries, Miller was completely paralyzed for two weeks; however he has recovered to some extent but has not regained the use of his legs, kidneys or stomach muscles, and he is not able to have sexual relations with Ms wife. Before he was injured, he attended church services and PTA meetings with his wife, also picnics and “singings,” and he is not now able to do those things. He was the superintendent of a Sunday School, and his wife was a teacher in the School; he helped his wife with the children, of whom there are four, ages 21, 16, 11 and 8; he helped her cook, and made a garden. And now, about the only thing he is able to do is to look at TV.”
Medical experts testified that Mr. Miller’s condition is permanent. In view of all of the foregoing, I certainly cannot say that the verdict to Mr. Miller for $100,000.00 was so grossly excessive as to shock the conscience. What young man with 27 years of expectancy would exchange for $100,000.00 a happy and useful life like Miller had in prospect for what Miller now has before him?
So to summarize: I would reverse and dismiss the judgment that Mrs. Miller recovered for consortium; and I would affirm the judgment in full for Mr. Miller.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9664488. Public record. Not legal advice.