 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wells v. Tru-Mark Grain11/23/2004
s deadlocked. In regards to the third note, the trial judge conferred with Wells's attorney and Tru-Mark's attorney. They all decided that since the note dealt with jury instruction 15, stating the form of the verdict, the trial judge would just reread that particular instruction. After the verdict was rendered, the trial judge, in order to make sure there was no confusion, asked if $270,000 was the total amount of damages proven by Wells. Ten jurors raised their hands. The trial judge then asked if the fault attributable to Knight was 30%, and nine jurors raised their hands. After the hearing for a new trial on damages, the trial judge also stated the following:
he verdict was small, and I was concerned that the jury had misread that instruction. And I think the record - - I recall specifically questioning the jury about the amount of damages they intended to award, and I think the record will reflect that. I don't think the jury was mistaken. And there was a - - just the panel, it was a very intelligent jury, and I don't think there was a mistake. But even though I didn't think there was a mistake, I questioned it.
We agree with the trial judge that the jury was not confused in determining damages and liability.
. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PIKE COUNTY IS AFFIRMED.
COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
MYERS, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR.
KING, C.J., DISSENTS WITH A SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY BRIDGES, P.J., AND IRVING, J.
KING, C.J., DISSENTING
. With appropriate regard for the majority, I dissent.
. While respecting the work of the jury, I find that a total award of $270,000 for the death of a normal and vibrant 17 year old boy is so low as to shock the conscience. Such an award is indicative of either confusion, bias, prejudice or a combination thereof.
. For these reasons, I would reverse and remand for a new trial.
BRIDGES, P.J., AND IRVING, J., JOIN THIS SEPARATE OPINION.
|