HARRIS, Chief Justice.
Mazelle Bittle, one of the appellants herein, was injured on November 24, 1967, while a passenger in an automobile being driven by her son, this car colliding with the car owned by appellee, Allen Smith. Mrs. Bittle, together with her husband, appellant I. G. Bittle, instituted suit against Smith seeking damages. Mrs. Bittle asserted various disabling injuries and Mr. Bittle sought damages for the loss of consortium, companionship, care and services of his wife. Mr. Smith answered with a general denial. On trial, the jury returned a verdict of $1,500 for Mrs. Bittle, but nothing for her husband. Thereafter, appellants moved to set aside the verdict and asked the court to grant a new trial, it being appellants' position that under Ark. Stat.Ann. § 27-1901 (Repl.1962), the verdict should have been vacated because it was not sustained by sufficient evidence, and a new trial should have been granted under Ark.Stat.Ann. § 27-1902 since the amount of actual pecuniary loss sustained was in excess of the verdict. The court denied this motion and from the order of denial, appellants bring this appeal. For reversal, it is simply asserted that "The trial court erred in not setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial."
Actually, the issue is Ark.Stat.Ann. § 27-1902, which provides as follows:
Appellants vigorously contend that the uncontradicted
Appellants argue that the situation presently before us is very similar to that presented in the case of Law v. Collins, 242 Ark. 83, 411 S.W.2d 877, the appeal in both cases being based on Ark.Stat.Ann. § 27-1902, except that in Law the trial court had granted a new trial while here it has refused to grant a new trial. We might here state that this one fact makes a vast difference for the granting or refusing of a new trial is a discretionary act by the court, and we only reverse where an abuse of discretion is clearly shown. In other words, since the trial court refused to grant a new trial, appellants must demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in order to prevail in this case.
We are unable to say that the Yell County Circuit Court abused its discretion,
A review of the medical evidence is in order. Dr. D. H. Martin of Ola testified that Mrs. Bittle came to his clinic early on the morning of November 24, stating that she had been in an automobile accident, and complaining of discomfort to the right side of her head and left hip. She was admitted to the hospital at Danville and Dr. Martin testified that he found no external evidence of injury and, after x-rays no findings of any bone pathology. Her left hip was bruised, but there were no bone fractures, nor were there any bruises on her head. About forty-eight hours later she was discharged and went home, feeling better, but still with some headaches. On December 2, 1967, she again came to his office complaining of feeling "addled" at times and she had bruises on the side of her left leg near the hip; also, she complained of headaches and was given darvon to ease pain. At his direction, she returned one week later, still complaining of headaches and the doctor referred her to a neurologist, Dr. William K. Jordan of Little Rock. Martin saw her occasionally through 1968, and stated that he last saw her on June 17, 1971, when "she only wanted her workmen's compensation papers filled out, and I suggested to her that we have Dr. Jordan do that, since he was treating her neurologically."
Dr. Jordan, who first saw Mrs. Bittle on December 22, 1967, testified that she described the automobile wreck and from his examination, he considered that her problem was probably a "post-traumatic cerebral syndrome."
Though not considering the subsequent accidents previously referred to, we think there was still evidence from which the jury could have concluded that Mrs. Bittle's
Dr. Martin mentioned that since November, 1967, he had treated her for female problems,
The trial court, of course, observed all of the witnesses and was in a paramount position to determine whether the verdict was unjust. Since a pecuniary loss exceeding the amount of the verdict (due to the collision) was not definitely established, we are unable to say that the trial court erred in refusing to set aside the verdict. No other error is suggested, and when the evidence shows that a plaintiff is entitled to recover substantial damages, and does obtain a substantial verdict ($1,500 constituting substantial recovery), a judgment will not be reversed because of inadequacy if there be no other error. Smith v. Arkansas Power & Light Company, 191 Ark. 389, 86 S.W.2d 411.