 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
West v. Holley11/19/2004
This opinion is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter.
Plaintiffs StephenR. West and Holley West appeal the trial court's denial of their motion for additur, a new trial, or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
BACKGROUND
The Wests were driving through a parking lot in their Ford Explorer when their car was struck by a Toyota Paseo driven by Jeffery Holley. The Wests sued Holley. Among other things, Mr. West sought recovery for damage to a spinal cord stimulator that had been implanted in his back eleven months prior to the accident to alleviate his chronic pain. Mr.West alleged that the accident had shifted the leads of the stimulator from their proper positions, interfering with the stimulator's ability to function properly. Mr.West incurred costs from chiropractic care in Utah, as well as costs associated with surgically returning the leads of the spinal cord stimulator to their original therapeutic positions.
The case was tried to a jury. Following deliberations, the jury returned a verdict finding Holley negligent and awarding Mrs.West $3000 in special damages and Mr.West $8040 in special damages. The initial verdict did not award any general damages, nor did it award Mr.West damages for the medical expenses he incurred in connection with the reimplantation of the spinal cord stimulator. The trial judge then instructed the jury that its award of special damages required at least a nominal award of general damages. After further deliberation, the jury returned with general damage awards of $1 for each plaintiff.
The Wests moved for additur or, in the alternative, for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict. They argued that (1)the nominal general damage awards of $1 for each plaintiff were inconsistent with the significant special damage awards, and (2)the jury's failure to award Mr.West damages for medical expenses relating to the spinal cord stimulator required the court to grant either additur or a new trial.
The Wests also based their motion for a new trial on an allegation of juror misconduct. In support of their motion, they relied on the affidavit of juror Stacie Bersie in which she testified as to statements made by another juror, Susan Weinmuller, during the course of the trial. Bersie testified that Weinmuller had stated an intention to discuss the case with family members during the trial and had revealed that she had been involved in prior lawsuits that she had failed to disclose in voir dire. Bersie also testified that Weinmuller expressed strong views against awarding damages in "smaller" personal injury cases. Relying on Bersie's affidavit, the Wests argued that Weinmuller's presence on the jury infringed their right to a fair trial.
The trial court held a hearing regarding Weinmuller's alleged misconduct. Weinmuller appeared and denied that she had discussed the case with family members before the conclusion of the trial. She admitted, however, that she had been subject, as a business owner in California, to a contract lawsuit and to workers' compensation claims she believed were spurious. She also admitted that she should have disclosed these experiences in response to voir dire questions asked during jury selection. The trial court then questioned Weinmuller as to the impact of these experiences on her attitudes and beliefs. Although Weinmuller's responses to these questions suggested bias, she assured the court that she was capable of setting her feelings aside and deciding the case on its own merits.
At the conclusion of the questioning, the Wests asked the court to probe more deeply into W
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|