 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wells v. Tru-Mark Grain11/23/2004
992)). "Additurs represent a judicial incursion into the traditional habitat of the jury, and therefore should never be employed without great caution." Id.
. Wells states that she presented overwhelming evidence of damages sustained by the death of Roderick. Most of the evidence concerned Roderick's character. Roderick was portrayed as a good kid, one who maintained good grades but was also being recruited by various colleges to play basketball. Roderick was also described as a responsible young man who was well thought of by his peers and teachers.
. The only other testimony dealing with damages was given by Dr. Robert Culbertson, an economist who performed a loss of earning capacity analysis. Culbertson determined that Roderick had a life expectancy of at least fifty-two more years. Culbertson further concluded that, based on Roderick's grades and basketball ability, he would have attended college, entered the workforce after graduating, and worked approximately forty-two years. Culbertson noted that he did not take into account a professional basketball career in determining Roderick's loss of earning capacity. Culbertson determined Roderick's net loss of earning capacity as a result of his death to be $1,413,304.
. On cross-examination, Culbertson admitted that it sounded reasonable for the work life expectancy to be ten years less than he had stated originally, or thirty-two rather than forty-two years. Culbertson also agreed that only one in three college scholarship basketball players actually graduate. Furthermore, Culbertson did admit that he based Roderick's $52,000 post-college starting salary on jobs relating to engineering, chemistry, mathematics, and physics. According to Culbertson, the starting salary for a graduate in humanities would be about $40,000 and the social sciences would be about $38,000.
. After the hearing on the motion for a new trial on damages, the trial judge stated the following:
But while I might disagree with the jury on the quantum damages, I also might disagree with the jury on the apportionment of fault or fault at all. And it's just not our system for me to impose my opinion when it's a jury issue, and it was a jury issue.
The trial judge later went on to say that he did not think the jury made a mistake; thus, he denied Wells's posttrial motions. The jury had the opportunity to see the witnesses and weigh their testimony. The trial judge did not find that the jury award was awarded contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence nor did the judge find that the jury was influenced by bias, prejudice, or passion. We find the same.
. In her argument, Wells further contends that one of the jury instructions which directed the jury to subtract from the present cash value the amount Roderick would have paid in income tax was not supported by testimony or Mississippi law. We note that after Tru-Mark objected to a calculation by Culbertson concerning deduction for income taxes, Wells stated that topic was a proper subject for cross-examination. Although Culbertson did not deduct income taxes from his final sum, he agreed that the tax rate on the annual earnings he assumed in his calculations could easily approach 30-35%. However, as Wells never objected to the jury instruction, we fail to see how she can now complain.
. As an aside, Wells also argues that the jury was confused in determining the apportionment of liability. During the course of deliberations, the jury sent four notes to the trial judge. The first two dealt with exhibits, the third stated, "If we arrive at a % and a $amount, does the plaintiff receive % of $amount?", and the fourth stated that the jury wa
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.
|
|