
    HAGEN v. HAGEN.
    Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist., Lorain Co.
    No. 471.
    Decided Oct. 17, 1928.
    First Publication of This Opinion.
    Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
    AUTOMOBILES.
    (50 Ad) Fact that niece sued uncle for damages for injuries received while riding as guest in uncle’s automobile, not sufficient to warrant presumption that jury acted upon theory that real defendant was insurance company.
    TRIAL.
    (590 V2a) Verdict of $8000 for permanent injury to spine, not excessive.
    Error to Common Pleas.
    Judgment affirmed.
    Ralph W. Weimer, Lorain, for plaintiff in error.
    Fauver & Fauver, Elyria, and Van Deusen & Calhoun, Lorain, for defendant in error.
    STATEMENT ,OF FACTS.
    Miss Jennie Hagen, defendant in error, 26 years of age, is a nience of James Hagen, plaintiff in error, her father _ being a twin brother of plaintiff in error. Miss Hagen sued her said uncle in the Court of Common Pleas and recovered a judgment for $8000 for personal injuries suffered by her while she and her mother and her father were riding with plaintiff in error as his guests in his automobile, which was being operated by him.
    In this error proceeding, no claim is made on behalf of the uncle that the parties did not have a fair and impartial trial in the Common Pleas Court; no complaint is made of the charge of the court nor of the rulings on the admission or rejection of evidence; the sole and only reason.why it is claimed a new_ trial should be granted is because the verdict is excessive.
   WASHBURN, PJ.

The suggestion is made that the jury acted upon the theory that the real defendant was an insurance company; but nothing is pointed out in the record which in any manner supports said suggestion, and we have found nothing tending to establish a basis for such suggestion.

Miss Hagen, her father and mother, and two physicians who attended Miss Hagen, testified as to her injuries and condition, and their testimony is not refuted in anjr way by any witness. The jury were fully justified in finding not only that Miss Hagen’s injuries were caused by the negligence and carelessness of her uncle and that she was not guilty of any negligence, but also that she received an injury to her sp'ine, from which she will never fully recover; that she has suffered much pain and will continue to suffer some pain and much inconvenience indefinitely; that her ability to work and earn money has been largely destroyed, with no substantial baste for the hope of its return; that before the accident she was in splendid health and was steadily employed at good wages, and is now permanently crippled in such a manner as to susbtantially interfere with her enjoyment of life.

We do not find that the verdict was excessive, or that there is any merit in the contention of plaintiff in error, and the judgment is therefore affirmed.

(Funk, J., and Pardee, J., concur.)  