once every two weeks during the spring following her accident. She also went swimming that summer.
After her graduation from college the plaintiff was employed as a teacher and there is no evidence of any loss of pay as a result of the injury nor of any present or future impairment of her earning power. The only suggestions in the doctors' reports of any possible future trouble from the injury are that 'The patient may have recurrent soreness in damp weather' and that 'recurrences could easily occur.'
Her doctors' bills amount to $ 170.00.
The increase in jurisdictional amount in diversity cases from $ 3,000 to $ 10,000, designed to lessen the case load of the federal courts and to bring the former limit into line with the present day value of money, would be completely futile if the courts, in passing upon the question, are bound to assume that a jury can include in its verdict an item for pain and suffering in any amount it pleases. As with any other element of damages, the Court may determine from the plaintiff's own evidence the maximum recovery legally possible. Ordinarily the amount claimed in the complaint will govern, but where, in a case like the present one, it is obvious that the claim is merely colorable and could not have been made in good faith, the Court is bound to say so.
The plaintiff has cited, as sustaining her position, my decision in Sicilia v. Tassel, D.C., 163 F.Supp. 371, in which I denied a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. That case involved the $ 3,000 limit. The plaintiff's tale of her suffering stretched the limits of credibility, but I thought it just possible that she could find a jury that would believe her and, if they did, a verdict of $ 3,000 could have been sustained. In the present case there is no question of credibility. Upon the facts appearing from the plaintiff's own testimony and the reports of her doctors, a verdict of $ 10,000 would be preposterous.
The complaint will be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.