This appeal is from a judgment in the sum of $47,500 awarded plaintiff pursuant to a jury verdict in his favor in this personal injury action arising out of a collision between plaintiff's vehicle and a truck driven by defendant's agent. Defendant's motion for new trial was overruled.
Bruno's Food Stores, Inc., appellant here, argues two grounds of the motion for new trial: (1) That one of the trial jurors, Rosie L. Catlin, failed to respond to questions asked on preliminary examination concerning whether any juror had been a plaintiff in a lawsuit; (2) The excessiveness of the jury verdict.
Prospective jurors were asked questions about any prior lawsuits in which they were a plaintiff or defendant. Rosie Catlin, a black woman who worked in a school lunchroom, failed to respond, even though she had been injured several years previously in an automobile accident, had sued, and recovered damages through a settlement agreement, and the case never came to trial.
At the hearing on the motion for new trial, juror Catlin was examined extensively on the question of her failure to answer the question when the prospective jurors were being interrogated. At one point juror Catlin said she did not "understand," and that she was "scared."
The trial court applied our recent case of Freeman v. Hall, 286 Ala. 161, 238 So.2d 330 (1970), and concluded no probable prejudice resulted from juror Catlin's failure to respond to questions on voir dire.
Neither is prejudicial error shown on the question of the excessiveness of the verdict. The plaintiff introduced evidence of permanent injury, pain and suffering and substantial loss of earning power. He had worked as an iron worker, making as much as $5.85 per hour prior to the accident. His salary as a security guard after the accident when he was able to go back to work was $1.60 per hour. His life expectancy at the time of trial was 16.43 years.
We need not extend this opinion to restate all the rules which apply to a ground of a motion for new trial, that the jury verdict is excessive. We refer simply to Carlisle v. Miller, 275 Ala. 440, 155 So.2d 689 (1963) where the rules are summarized and supporting cases are cited.
The judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed.
HEFLIN, C.J., and LAWSON, MERRILL and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.
* * * * *