 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Christiansen v. Stephens8/14/2002
A plaintiff appeals from the district court's ruling denying a motion for new trial after the jury returned a verdict in her favor. AFFIRMED.
This is an appeal from the district court's ruling denying a motion for new trial in a personal injury case. Plaintiff Allison Christiansen, a minor, appeals by and through her next friend and mother, Janet Christiansen, claiming the damages awarded to her by the jury are inadequate. We affirm the district court's denial of a new trial.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
On September 21, 1995, Allison Christiansen, then five years of age, and her brother Michael were passengers in a pickup truck driven by their aunt. The pickup collided with a vehicle driven by Brandon Stephens after Stephens ran a stop sign. Allison was ejected from the pickup. She sustained three lacerations to her face and neck, the largest being a six-centimeter wound to her left cheek. A plastic surgeon sutured the wounds under a local anesthetic in a hospital emergency room. Allison spent one night in the hospital.
Plaintiffs sued Stephens in September 1997 seeking recovery for alleged personal injuries to Allison and Michael. The case was tried to a jury in October of 2000. Stephens admitted he caused the accident. Allison's medical expenses were paid prior to trial. The jury determined Allison was not at fault for failing to wear her seatbelt. The jury awarded $5,000 to Allison, consisting of $2,500 for past pain and suffering, and $2,500 for future medical expenses. The award included no damages for future pain and suffering. The jury did not award any damages to Michael. Plaintiffs filed a motion for new trial claiming the damages awarded were inadequate. The trial court denied the motion after concluding the jury's verdict was consistent with the evidence and adequate. On appeal, Allison contends it was error for the trial court to deny her motion for new trial based on inadequate damages when the jury awarded her no damages for future pain and suffering.
II. Motion for New Trial.
The district court has considerable discretion in ruling upon a motion for new trial based upon the ground that the verdict was inadequate. Fisher v. Davis, 601 N.W.2d 54, 57 (Iowa 1999). Whether damages are so inadequate to warrant a new trial is for the district court to decide. Id. We will not ordinarily disturb its discretion to grant or deny the motion unless an abuse of discretion is shown. Id.
Our case law shows that we have been loath to interfere with a jury verdict. Fixing the amount of damages is a function for the jury. Sallis v. Lamansky, 420 N.W.2d 795, 799 (Iowa 1988). The court should interfere only when the damage award is "flagrantly excessive or inadequate, so out of reason so as to shock the conscience, the result of passion or prejudice, or lacking in evidentiary support." Harsha v. State Sav. Bank, 346 N.W.2d 791, 799 (Iowa 1984). Although the evidence may have justified a higher award, such is not controlling. Cowan v. Flannery, 461 N.W.2d 155, 158 (Iowa 1990). The determinative question posed is whether under the record, giving the jury its right to accept or reject whatever portions of the conflicting evidence it chose, the verdict effects substantial justice between the parties. Id.
Appellant contends the jury's failure to award damages for future pain and suffering is inadequate as a matter of law and contrary to the evidence produced at trial. Under the circumstances of this case, we disagree. The court instructed the jury, "The amount you assess for physical and mental pain and suffering in the past and future cannot be measured by any exact or mathematical standard. You must use your
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.
|
|