
    CHAMBERS v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
    Damages; Judgments.
    In an action for personal injuries, a judgment on a verdict for the plaintiff for 1 cent was, on appeal by the plaintiff, affirmed, because the evidence was sufficient to justify the conclusion reached by the jury that no substantial injury was sustained by the plaintiff, and there was no apparent reason for judicial interference on the ground that the damages were inadequate.
    No. 2847.
    Submitted December 8, 1915.
    Decided January 3, 1916.
    Hearing on an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, on verdict, in an action to recover damages for alleged personal injuries.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      Mr. Michael O. O’Brien and Mr. Edward L. Gies for the appellant.
    
      
      Mr. Conrad H. Syme, Corporation Counsel, and Mr. Roger J. Whiteford, Assistant, for the appellee.
   Mr. Justice Van Orsdel

delivered the opinion of the Court:

Appellant, Celia Chambers, plaintiff below, sued the District •of Columbia for damages to compensate her for alleged injuries which she sustained from falling over an elevation in a sidewalk in the city of Washington.

On trial in the supreme court of the District, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, awarding her 1 cent damages. From a judgment thereon, she prosecuted this appeal. From the verdict,, the jury found against defendant on the question of negligence. There was a sharp conflict in the evidence as to whether plaintiff sustained any injury. The question of damages, should the negligence of defendant be found, was fully and fairly presented to the jury by the trial court. Dpon the evidence, therefore, it must be assumed that the jury found that the injuries plaintiff sustained were of so trivial a character as not to justify a substantial award; hence the verdict awarding her nominal damages. The evidence was sufficient to justify the conclusion'reached by the jury that no substantial injury was sustained by plaintiff, and there is no apparent'reason for judicial interference on the ground that the damages are inadequate.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs. Affirmed.  