 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Ross v. Tjaden9/10/2003
Robert Ross appeals the denial of his motion for new trial following the trial on his claim for personal injury damages resulting from an automobile accident. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Plaintiff Robert Ross appeals the district court's denial of his motion for new trial, following a jury trial and a verdict in his favor, on his claim for personal injury damages resulting from an automobile accident. We reverse and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages.
On December 11, 1998, sixty-three-year-old Robert Ross was a passenger in an automobile driven by Marlys McClenathan which was struck by a car driven by Brandi Tjaden and owned by Leo Tjaden. Ross subsequently filed an action against the Tjadens alleging "serious bodily injuries as a result of the collision." Trial was held and the jury, finding the accident a proximate cause of damages to Ross, awarded him a total of $29,762. That special verdict included $3,462 for past medical expenses, $21,300 for future medical expenses, and $5,000 for past pain and suffering. Ross moved the court for a new trial, contending the verdict was inadequate and inconsistent with the evidence at trial. The court summarily denied the motion. Ross appeals that ruling.
We review district court rulings on motions for new trials for abuse of discretion. Kalvik ex rel. Kalvik v. Seidl, 595 N.W.2d 136, 138 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). Iowa has long recognized the trial court's inherent power to grant a new trial where the verdict fails to administer substantial justice. Wilson v. IBP, Inc., 558 N.W.2d 132, 144 (Iowa 1996). "A verdict should not be set aside as either too large or too small simply because the reviewing court would have reached a different conclusion. The court always has inherent power to set aside a verdict which fails to do substantial justice between the parties." Cowen v. Flannery, 461 N.W.2d 155, 157-58 (Iowa 1990) (quoting Kautman v. Mar-Mac Comm. Sch. Dist., 255 N.W.2d 146, 147-48 (Iowa 1977)).
On appeal, Ross first argues that because the jury awarded all of the future costs of a knee replacement, it is inconsistent to only have awarded a fraction of past medical expenses for the same knee. Second, he contends since the jury awarded past and future medical expenses, it is inconsistent to fail to award damages for loss of bodily function and pain and suffering. Third, he maintains a new trial should be granted where, as here, the total award is nearly equal to the special damages.
In Cowan, 461 N.W.2d at 158, our supreme court identified four scenarios involving appeals from motions for new trials based on claims of the inadequacy or inconsistency of the verdict. The court has (1) affirmed the court's granting of a new trial where the evidence material to the damage award is undisputed and the damage award was approximately equal or less than the special damages, (2) reversed the court's denial of a new trial where evidence material to the damage award is undisputed and the award was nearly equal or less than the special damages, (3) affirmed the trial court's denial of a new trial where the evidence of the cause or the extent of injury was disputed, and (4) reversed the granting of a new trial based on inadequate damages where the evidence as to the nature, extent, and severity of the injuries were disputed. Id., 461 N.W.2d at 160.
The Tjadens assert the facts of this case most closely approximate those in the third category as laid out in Cowan, in that the cause of or extent of the injury was disputed. They believe this conclusion is essentially outcome determinative and that we thus are required to affirm the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial. They note evidence allegedly sup
Page 1 2 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|