 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnson v. Koepke11/30/2004
In this personal injury and future damages action, the jury awarded a verdict in favor of respondent. Appellants challenge the district court's denial of their motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), a new trial, or in the alternative, remittitur. We affirm.
DECISION
I.
Appellants argue that the district court erred by denying appellants' motion for JNOV. We disagree. Where judgment notwithstanding the verdict has been denied by the district court, on appellate review, the denial "must be affirmed, if, in the record, there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the verdict." Pouliot v. Fitzsimmons, 582 N.W.2d 221, 224 (Minn. 1998) (quotation omitted). "The evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and an appellate court must not set the verdict aside if it can be sustained on any reasonable theory of the evidence." Id.
Respondent presented evidence that he suffered a permanent injury , that there was a high likelihood that he would need surgery and future care resulting in future treatment costs. Respondent also presented evidence that the injuries he sustained as a result of the accident affected both his ability to work and his life in general, thus affecting future earning capacity.
Appellants argue that evidence regarding the relatively small amount of compensatory damages overwhelmingly indicates that reasonable minds could not differ as to the unreasonableness of the future damages award. But as the district court notes in a memorandum attached to its order dated January 30, 2004, appellants presented no evidence on the issue of damages other than cross-examination of respondent and respondent's treating physician. The cross-examinations did not elicit any testimony that directly contradicted respondent's evidence on his claims for injury and future damages. We conclude the district court did not err in denying JNOV.
II.
Appellants challenge the district court's denial of their motion for new trial on several grounds including: excessive damages, improper submission of issues to a jury, error in exclusion and admission of evidence, and insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
Excessive Damages
Appellants argue that the district court erred by denying the motion for new trial because the jury rendered a verdict that was excessive. "The discretion to grant a new trial on the ground of excessive damages rests with the trial court, whose determination will only be overturned for abuse of that discretion." Advanced Training Sys., Inc. v. Caswell Equip. Co., 352 N.W.2d 1, 11 (Minn. 1984). A new trial on damages will be granted only when the verdict is so inadequate or excessive that it "could only have been rendered on account of passion or prejudice." Flanagan v. Lindberg, 404 N.W.2d 799, 800 (Minn. 1987). But speculation that passion or prejudice existed is not sufficient to warrant a new trial. Vadnais v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 309 Minn. 97, 104, 243 N.W.2d 45, 49 (1976). The supreme court has considered the following factors: plaintiff's injuries, past and future pain and suffering, life expectancy, and job loss. De Witt v. Schubauer, 287 Minn. 279, 286, 177 N.W.2d 790, 795 (1970); see also Stenzel v. Bach, 295 Minn. 257, 260, 203 N.W.2d 819, 822 (1973) (affirming the district court's denial of a new trial based on the considerations in DeWitt).
Here, respondent presented evidence on his injury, his past pain, and the great likelihood that his injury was permanent, his age and future life expectancy, and the impact of his injury on his job and job prospects. Appellants argue th
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|