 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Christiansen v. Stephens8/14/2002
sound judgment based upon an impartial consideration of the evidence."
The jury heard evidence that Allison's injuries healed very well; however, the cut on her left cheek left a scar. The jury also heard evidence that scar revision surgery would make the scar less visible. The record reveals further surgery could have been performed anytime after September 1996. When trial was held in October 2000, revision surgery had not been performed or scheduled.
Allison testified she did not want to undergo revision surgery. Her mother testified she believed surgery would be done at some point in time. Revision surgery involves removing the current scar and resuturing the wound. The surgery contemplated here can be performed outside the hospital with a local anesthetic. However, if the patient is unable to tolerate the procedure or hold still, a general anesthetic may be required. Recovery involves rubbing lotion on the wound to minimize scarring. Allison's doctor informed the jury that if revision surgery were done, his fee would be approximately $2,500. No evidence was offered regarding the costs that would be incurred if the procedure was performed under a general anesthetic in a hospital setting.
We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to award a new trial. The jury was permitted to closely examine Allison's face on the day of trial. The evidence suggests her residual scar was relatively minor in nature and had not caused Allison any significant social or emotional problems. The jury could also have concluded that any further surgery, if performed, would be minor in nature and the source of minimal discomfort to Allison. We conclude the damage award is not flagrantly inadequate, does not shock the conscience, and is not lacking in evidentiary support. The record reveals that the verdict effects substantial justice between the parties.
AFFIRMED.
|