 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnson v. Hadenfeldt12/28/2001
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Glenn E. Pille, Judge.
Defendants appeal following a trial on the plaintiff's personal injury action in which the jury awarded the plaintiff $126,760.15.
Defendants appeal following a trial on the plaintiff's personal injury action in which the jury awarded the plaintiff $126,760.15. They contend (1) the court erred in instructing the jury on several matters, and (2) the damages awarded by the jury are excessive. We affirm.
I. FACTS.
Around 5:45 on the morning of August 26, 1997, Charles Johnson, age fifty-five, was jogging in the gutter of the left lane of a city street, facing the oncoming lane of traffic. Johnson preferred to run in the street to avoid pedestrians and dogs on the sidewalk. As he was rounding a curve, a car being driven by seventeen-year-old Jennifer Hadenfeldt, approached at a speed of ten to fifteen miles per hour in the right hand lane from behind Johnson. Jennifer had been attempting to change her defroster and had drifted into the left lane when she struck Johnson from behind. He suffered extensive cuts, scrapes and bruises. Jennifer testified the morning was foggy and the visibility low, while Johnson claimed the morning was merely hazy, with visibility of five miles.
Johnson incurred hospital expenses and missed work because of the accident. He returned to jogging normally within six months of the accident. He continues to experience some problems with his left knee and has some scarring. Additionally, he is now more "skittish" about vehicles when jogging. He testified that he essentially does everything now that he did before the accident, except when he squats or does things involving his left knee.
Based on the injuries sustained in the accident, Johnson filed an action against Jennifer and her parents, Jerry and Shirley Hadenfeldt, who owned the vehicle. Jennifer admitted crossing over into the oncoming lane and striking Johnson. Following trial, the court instructed the jury that Johnson had a right to jog in the street and that Iowa law does not require a jogger to wear reflective clothing. The jury found in favor of Johnson and awarded damages totaling $126,760.15. The defendants filed a motion for new trial, arguing in part that several jury instructions were erroneous and the damage award was excessive. The district court denied the motion, and the defendants appeal.
II. JURY INSTRUCTIONS.
We review a trial court's formulation of jury instructions for errors of law. Shinn v. Iowa Mut. Ins. Co., 610 N.W.2d 538, 541 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000). The standard of review for jury instructions is whether prejudicial error by the trial court has occurred. Thavenet v. Davis, 589 N.W.2d 233, 236 (Iowa 1999). Jury instructions must be considered as a whole, and if the jury has not been misled, then there is not reversible error. Id.
The defendants claim (1) jury instructions numbers twenty-one and twenty-two failed to properly state Iowa law as they advised the jury that Johnson had a right to jog in the street and instructed that he could not be negligent for failing to jog on the sidewalk and wear reflective clothing, (2) the instructions were misleading, confusing, and erroneously diminished Johnson's duty to avoid the accident, and (3) the instructions erroneously emphasized Johnson's theory of the case and prejudiced them.
Instruction number twenty-one stated:
As a pedestrian, Mr. Johnson had the right to jog on the left side of the street. However, you are instructed that the primary use for which a street is designed, other than a crosswalk, is for vehicular traffic, and use by pedestrians
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|