Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Fred's Dollar Store v. Adams
Citations: 1964 Ark. LEXIS 443; 238 Ark. 468; 382 S.W.2d 592Docket: 5-3338
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; October 12, 1964; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Christine Adams filed an action against the appellant for damages resulting from a fall outside the appellant's store on October 27, 1962. The primary issue on appeal is whether the jury's $20,000 award for damages is excessive. At the time of the trial, more than thirteen months post-accident, Adams continued to experience significant pain, primarily in her lower back. Four physicians had treated her without success, leading to two hospitalizations totaling approximately twenty-five days, during which she underwent a myelogram and received traction therapy. Adams, then 26 years old and living on a farm, was unable to perform household tasks or farm work due to her injury, which was diagnosed as a potential ruptured disc. She faced a 50% limitation of motion in her back and required regular heat therapy, as well as the use of a supporting girdle. Her past and projected medical expenses approximated $1,000. The jury reasonably concluded that her condition was unlikely to improve without surgery, which she could not afford. The appellant contended that the jury should not have considered future disability and loss of earning capacity since these were not explicitly mentioned in the damage instructions. However, the court found that the jury was permitted to consider various elements of damage based on the instructions given, which did not exclude other established factors presented during the trial. The court emphasized that each case is unique, and the ultimate test for the jury’s verdict is whether it shocks the court's conscience or suggests juror bias. There was no indication that Adams was feigning her injuries. Given her prolonged suffering, economic losses, and the likelihood of ongoing issues, the court affirmed the jury's award, finding it justified and not excessively liberal.