 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Demski v. Sidwell3/21/2003
Judgment: Affirmed.
. Appellant, Jessica Sidwell, appeals the April 17, 2002 judgment entry, in which the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas ordered a new trial due to the unreasonableness of the jury's damage award.
. Appellee, Lisa A. Demski, along with her husband, Michael Demski, and her son, Patrick Demski, filed a personal injury action on June 19, 2000, against appellant and her mother, Anita F. Sidwell. The complaint was filed as the result of a rear end collision that occurred on April 17, 1999. The case proceeded to jury trial on November 14, 2001, and continued on November 15, 2001. Prior to the trial, there was a stipulation that appellant failed to maintain an assured clear distance, and thus, was negligent. However, there was no such stipulation as to the issues of proximate cause and damages. Hence, the case proceeded to trial on those issues.
. This case arose as the result of an auto accident that occurred on April 17, 1999, when appellant rear-ended appellee's vehicle. Appellant was negligent for failing to maintain an assured clear distance, and as a result, her car collided with the automobile operated by appellee. Appellee sought medical treatment the day after the accident for injuries sustained as a result of the collision. She was seen by a chiropractor, who determined that her injuries were permanent. Specifically, her chiropractor assigned a fifteen percent disability rating to her future impairment. The medical bills that were admitted into evidence amounted to $7,853.
. On November 16, 2001, the jury returned separate verdict forms in favor of appellee and Erie Insurance Group. The verdict in favor of appellee was in the amount of $4,059.20 for medical expenses, and zero dollars for past and future injuries. The verdict in favor of Erie Insurance Group totaled $2,000. The jury's verdict was then reduced to a judgment. On November 27, 2001, appellee filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, for a new trial. On April 17, 2002, the trial court granted appellee's motion for a new trial. It is from that entry that appellant timely filed the instant appeal and now assigns a single assignment of error:
. "The trial court erred to the prejudice of [appellant] and abused its discretion in granting [appellee's] motion for new trial pursuant to [Civ.R. 59(A)]."
. In her lone assignment of error, appellant maintains that the trial court abused its discretion by granting appellee's motion for a new trial. Appellee filed a motion for a new trial on the grounds of Civ.R. 59(A)(4) and (6).
. Civ.R. 59(A) provides:
. "A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues upon any of the following grounds:
. " *
. "(4) Excessive or inadequate damages, appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice;
. " *
. "(6) The judgment is not sustained by the weight of the evidence; however, only one new trial may be granted on the weight of the evidence in the same case[.]"
. A court shall not award a new trial on the basis of inadequate damages, pursuant to Civ.R. 29(A)(4), unless the moving party is able to establish that the verdict resulted from jury passion and prejudice such that the jury's assessment of the damages was "so overwhelmingly disproportionate as to shock reasonable sensibilities." Pena v. Northeast Ohio Emergency Affiliates, Inc. (1995), 108 Ohio App.3d 96, 104. The size of a verdict, without more, is insufficient to prove passion or prejudice. Weidner v. Blazic (1994) 98 Ohio App.3d 321, 334-335.
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|