In granting these writs of certiorari on the application of the relators Joseph P. Constance, Traders & General Insurance Company, his collision insurer, and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, a third party defendant and insurer of the vehicle in which Mrs. Lee Ann Fontenot, a guest passenger, was injured as a result of its collision with the Constance vehicle on May 20, 1962, we limited our consideration to the alternative request of the relators, i. e., that we review the increase by the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, of the trial judge’s award to Mrs. Fontenot from $5,000 to $10,000 for the pain, suffering and partial disability she sustained as a result of the collision.1 See, La.App., 159 So.2d 746.
The principles of law applicable to this case are fully set out in the case of Ballard v. National Indemnity Co. of Omaha, Nebraska, No. 47,152, this day decided, and consolidated with this one for argument, and it would serve no useful purpose to reiterate them here.
Counsel for the relators contend that an examination of all of the cases involving somewhat similar injuries do not support the conclusion of the Court of Appeal that the award of the trial judge in the instant case was manifestly insufficient. Instead, they insist a review of all cases that may be comparable, considering the facts and circumstances of this case as found by the Court of Appeal,2 will disclose the *979trial judge’s award was adequately fair and therefore should not be disturbed.
We have examined cases3 relied upon by the Court of Appeal for its conclusion that the trial court’s award to Mrs. Fontenot for the injuries she suffered as a result of the accident “ * * * is out of proportion with previous awards made for somewhat similar injuries, and * * * is manifestly insufficient under all the circumstances presented here * * * ” and find they do not support the conclusion that the trial judge abused his discretion inasmuch as the injuries and disabilities of the plaintiffs therein were either different and/or of a much more serious nature.
We think after giving full consideration to all the facts and circumstances of this case that the assessment of damages by the trial judge was fair and adequate and well within the limits of his discretion.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the Court of Appeal as it relates to the claim of Mrs. Lee Ann Fontenot is reversed and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.