 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wells v. Tru-Mark Grain11/23/2004
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 11/23/2004
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
. On August 14, 2000, Roderick Wells was attempting to cross a two-lane highway when his car was struck by a Tru-Mark Grain tractor-trailer driven by Levoy Knight. Roderick died from massive head trauma approximately fourteen minutes after the crash. Roderick's mother, Sheila Wells, subsequently filed a wrongful death suit against Tru-Mark and Knight alleging negligence in Knight's operation of the tractor-trailer. After a three day trial, a jury in the Pike County Circuit Court returned a verdict on February 20, 2003. The jury assessed damages of $270,000, but found the defendants only thirty percent liable. The result was a jury verdict for Wells in the amount of $81,000.
. Wells filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on damages only or, in the alternative, for a new trial on damages. This motion also included a request for clarification of judgment or an additur. A hearing on the matter was held March 10, 2003, and the court entered its order on April 10, 2003, denying Wells's post-trial motions. On May 21, 2003, Wells also filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure 60. The court denied this motion on July 9, 2003. Wells now appeals to this Court asserting that the jury verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and the trial court erred in refusing to grant an additur or, in the alternative, a new trial on damages.
I. WAS THE JURY VERDICT AGAINST THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE?
II. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN REFUSING TO GRANT AN ADDITUR OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A NEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES?
. As both of Wells's issues concern the amount of damages awarded by the jury, we will analyze them together. In her first issue, Wells argues that the jury award of $81,000 is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. In her second issue, Wells claims that the trial court erred in refusing to grant an additur or, in the alternative, a new trial on damages.
. Miss. Code Ann. ยง 11-1-55 (Rev. 2002) provides:
The supreme court or any other court of record in a case in which money damages were awarded may overrule a motion for new trial or affirm on direct or cross appeal, upon condition of an additur or remittitur, if the court finds that the damages are excessive or inadequate for the reason that the jury or trier of the facts was influenced by bias, prejudice, or passion, or that the damages awarded were contrary to the overwhelming weight of credible evidence....
. When this Court reviews whether the trial judge erred in denying a motion for additur we are limited to an abuse of discretion standard of review. Maddox v. Muirhead, 738 So. 2d 742 ( ) (Miss. 1999). The focus at the appellate level is whether the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the motion for additur, not upon the jury's action in awarding damages. McNair Transport, Inc. v. Crosby, 375 So. 2d 985, 986 (Miss. 1979). The burden of proving injury and other damages falls to the party seeking the additur. Id. We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the additur is sought and must give him the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be reasonably drawn therefrom. Id. "Awards set by jury are not merely advisory and generally will not be 'set aside unless so unreasonable as to strike mankind at first blush as being beyond all measure, unreasonable in amount and outrageous.'" Maddox, 738 So. 2d at ( ) (citing Rodgers v. Pascagoula Public School Dist., 611 So. 2d 942, 945 (Miss. 1
Page 1 2 3 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|