 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kaltsounis v. Chappelear9/28/2004
ough a judicial system. Macke v. Pierce, supra. A motion for new trial is to be granted only when error prejudicial to the rights of the unsuccessful party has occurred. Bradley T. & Donna T. v. Central Catholic High Sch., supra.
2. Analysis
Kaltsounis argues on appeal that the damages award entered by the jury was insufficient as a matter of law and was the result of passion or prejudice. Kaltsounis admits it is apparent that the jury found that he was injured as a result of the accident, but he argues that the $210.01 award was insufficient because it represented the $210 he incurred for his initial visit to his general physician and only 1 cent for the remainder of his medical expenses. The Chappelears argue, however, that the significant evidence of Kaltsounis' pre-existing medical conditions may well have led the jury to conclude that Kaltsounis was entitled to visit his general physician to determine if there were any medical problems as a result of the accident, that the jury found the remainder of Kaltsounis' alleged injuries were not caused by the accident, and that the addition of 1 cent was merely an incidental mistake or otherwise unexplainable.
It is fundamental that the amount of damages to be awarded is a determination solely for the fact finder, and the fact finder's decision will not be disturbed on appeal if it is supported by the evidence and bears a reasonable relationship to the elements of the damages proven. Carlson v. Okerstrom, 267 Neb. 397, 675 N.W.2d 89 (2004). An award of damages may be set aside as inadequate when, and not unless, it is so inadequate as to be the result of passion, prejudice, mistake, or some other means not apparent in the record. See Wagner v. Union Pacific RR. Co., 11 Neb. App. 1, 642 N.W.2d 821 (2002). On appeal, the fact finder's determination of damages is given great deference. Id.
In the present case, it is notable that the jury was not given a special or detailed verdict form from which we could have determined how the jury arrived at the amount of $210.01 for damages. Without such, we are unable to determine precisely how the jury arrived at this amount. It may be, as Kaltsounis argues, that the jury awarded him $210 for his initial visit to his general physician and then awarded only 1 cent for injuries deemed to be caused by the accident. It may be, as the Chappelears argue, that the jury found that none of Kaltsounis' injuries were caused by the accident and that the addition of 1 cent was merely an incidental error. It may be that the jury simply found that of the approximate $6,134 of medical expenses testified to by Kaltsounis, only $210.01 should be recovered. Without speculation, we simply cannot determine how the amount was derived.
There is no way for us to determine how the jury arrived at the amount of damages awarded. The record contains no evidence from which we can find any passion or prejudice. On the record before us, the most that can be said is that the damages awarded are supported by the record. As such, we cannot conclude that the district court committed an abuse of discretion in overruling the motion for new trial. The record simply does not support a finding that the jury's damages award was inadequate as a matter of law.
V. CONCLUSION
The record does not support a finding that the district court abused its discretion in overruling the motion for new trial. The district court's judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
|