Stephen A. Barzelis v. Frank J. Kulikowski, Frank J. Kulikowski and Marie Ann Kulikowski, Cross-Claimants and v. Petra Williams, Cross-Defendant And

Cross-defendant Williams appeals from a judgment and order denying her motion for a new trial in an action for personal injuries arising from- an automobile accident. Jurisdiction of the action is based upon diversity of citizenship between the original plaintiffs and defendants. Appellant’s only attack is on the order denying her motion for a new trial.

Appellant first argues that the verdict is excessive. She bases her argu ment in part upon the fact that the amount awarded is the exact amount for which appellee’s counsel argued. A jury, however, does not have to give reasons for what it does. The coincidence, while interesting, is not determinative. The proper test is stated in our decision in Siebrand v. Gossnell, 9 Cir., 1956, 234 F.2d 81 , 94:

Appellant does not bring herself within that test. The evidence supports the verdict. It is not enough that we might, as the triers of fact, have awarded less. See also United States v. Becker, 9 Cir., 1967, 378 F.2d 319, 324 ; Young Candy & Tobacco Co. v. Montoya, 1962, 91 Ariz. 363 , 372 P.2d 703 ; Fulton v. Johannsen, 1966, 3 Ariz.App. 562 , 416 P.2d 983 .

Second, appellant argues that the verdict makes an allowance to appellee…