Fannie Allen, 71 years of age, was injured when appellant’s bus backed in such manner as to engage the rear bumper of an automobile driven by the plaintiff’s son, into which she wasmttempting to enter. The appeal is from a judgment for $3,000 based on a jury’s verdict.
Errors complained of are (1) Instruction No. 1, (2) lack of substantial evidence, and (3) an excessive verdict.
*123Objection to the instruction was that it unduly emphasized testimony upon which the plaintiff relied; also that it was abstract.1
It is true that certain alleged acts of the defendant upon which the plaintiff based her suit were mentioned in the instructions, but there was testimony as to each. If it should be conceded that the defendant’s cause might have been better served by a shorter instruction, still, within certain limitations too well known to call for repetition here, discretion rests with the trial court in the matter of phraseology, and unless some rule of law is violated and prejudice results, a judgment will not be reversed merely because the reviewing tribunal would have employed a different expression.
Appellant thinks that because the so-called factual story told by appellee and some of her witnesses appears improbable there was want of substantial evidence. This would be true if, as distinguished from substantive testimony, the jury did not pass upon credibility of witnesses. But it does, and results reached in the case at bar indicate that Fannie Allen’s version was believed. Whatever doubt may have existed appears to have been resolved in favor of the plaintiff, and we cannot say that impossibilities were stated and that the evidence lacked the essential quality of substantiality.
*124Dr. J. N. Pate testified regarding injuries. Appellee had a dislocated shoulder, a broken collar bone,2 and bodily bruises were attended by swelling. When asked what condition the subject’s back was in, Dr. Pate replied: “It was so tender-—and it was so painful—[that it was difficult to determine] what damage bad been done to the back. .She bad to be helped into the office. I ‘reduced’ the dislocation and gave her pain medicine for that. . . . She suffered lots; couldn’t move ‘that’ arm at all [on account of shoulder injury]. ... In my opinion she will never have any usable use of her right shoulder and right arm. ’ ’
In connection with the circumstance that Dr. Pate did not see the patient until-five days after injury, he testified that physical evidence was such that total disability could not have been of long duration.
We think the Doctor’s testimony, and other evidence as to the extent of injury and probable duration of disability were sufficient to justify the amount recovered. If, as the injured woman testified (confirmed by Dr. Pate) she. “was spitting up some blood,” effect of the trauma was more than passive.
Affirmed.