BOLADO SAWMILL, Appellant, v. RICHARD A. DIGGS, for his wife, CAROLYN DIGGS, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY. Argued June 3, 1975. Decided June 27, 1975. 1. The plaintiff will not be denied a substantial recovery if he has produced the best evidence available and it is sufficient to afford a reasonable basis for estimating his damages. Plaintiff’s wife was injured in the factory owned by defendant. An action for personal injuries occasioned by the negligence of defendant was instituted, in which plaintiff also sought damages for the loss of the society of his wife. After a jury trial plaintiff was awarded $8,125.00. Judgment was entered and defendant appealed, alleging excessiveness of the verdict. The judgment was affirmed. Patrick W. Sanyene and MacDonald M. Perry for appellant. P. Amos George and M. Fahnbulleh Jones for appellee. MR. JUSTICE the Court. WARDSWORTH delivered the opinion of An action was instituted on October 1, 1974, in the Sixth Judicial Circuit Court, Montserrado County, for damages sustained by Richard A. Diggs’ wife in the Bolado Sawmill factory of defendant on August 31, 1974. Defendant denied liability and all the allegations advanced by plaintiff. The case was tried and the jury returned a verdict awarding plaintiff special damages of $125.00 and general damages in the sum of $8,000. Defendant filed a 231 232 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS motion for a new trial which was resisted and denied by the court. The trial judge confirmed the verdict of the jury in this case and the judgment was entered accordingly, to which the defendant noted exceptions and prayed for an appeal to this Court. As the basis of its appeal appellant has filed an approved bill of exceptions comprising one count which objects to the judgment for $8,125.00 as excessive. We consider this contention of excessiveness untenable, for the reason that defendant admits all the facts stated by the appellee in the complaint to be true. The Injuries Law is relevant to the measure of damages. “Measure of damages. The object of a civil action for injuries is to indemnify the injured person, not to punish the injurer ; therefore, it follows that the measure of damages is the actual amount of the loss or inconvenience sustained by the injured person without any reference to the degree of misconduct of which the injurer may have been guilty. The only exceptions to this rule are set forth in the second paragraph of this section and in other sections and Titles referred to therein.” 1956 Code 17:11. In his complaint appellee made clear that he claimed damages for the inconveniences and/or disadvantages he and his family suffered because of the pain and suffering sustained by his wife as a result of the injuries sustained by reason of defendant’s negligence, which was conclusively proved at the trial. We do not consider the damages awarded by the trial jury as being excessive in view of the injuries sustained by plaintiff’s wife. Common law authorities have laid down this principle, and there is authority to guide us on the proper amount of damages. “As to amount : Courts indicate that there is a distinction between the quality of proof necessary to es- LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 233 tablish the fact that the plaintiff has sustained some damage, and the measure of proof necessary to enable the jury to fix the amount. Although formerly the tendency was to restrict the recovery to such matters as were susceptible of having attached to them an exact pecuniary value, it is now generally held that the uncertainty which prevents a recovery is uncertainty as to the fact of the damage and not as to its amount and that where it is reasonably certain that damage has resulted, mere uncertainty as to the amount will not preclude the right of recovery or prevent a jury decision awarding damages. This view has been sustained where, from the nature of the case, the extent of the injury, and the amount of damage are not capable of exact and accurate proof. Under such circumstances, all that can be required is that the evidence–with such certainty as the nature of the particular case may permit–lay a foundation which will enable the trier of facts to make a fair and reasonable estimate of the amount of damage. The plaintiff will not be denied a substantial recovery if he has produced the best evidence available and it is sufficient to afford a reasonable basis for estimating his loss.” 22 AM. JUR., 2d, Damages, � 25 ( 1965 ) . Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed with costs against appellant, It is so ordered. Affirmed.