 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorensen v. Riepma2/28/2001
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County, James D. Scott, Judge.
Kerrie and Michael Riepma appeal the district court's ruling denying their motion for new trial on the issue of damages in Loren and Judith Sorensen's personal injury action. AFFIRMED.
Kerrie and Michael Riepma appeal the district court's ruling denying their motion for new trial on the issue of damages in Loren and Judith Sorensen's personal injury action. We find the jury award is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence and, therefore, we affirm.
Background facts.
On October 29, 1994, Loren and Judith Sorenson's automobile was hit from behind by Kerrie Riepma's van while at a stoplight. Riepma described the impact as minor while the Sorensons described it as being quite forceful. The Sorenson car was pushed approximately fifty feet into the intersection. The accident caused several scrapes to the Sorenson's Oldsmobile Cutlass and the front passenger seat was damaged. The Sorensons suffered trauma to their necks and backs from the impact of the collision. They sought medical treatment from a chiropractor and brought suit to recover for their injuries.
Judgment was entered on May 3, 1999, following a jury trial. The jury found Ms. Riepma liable for the injuries to the Sorensons. The jury awarded damages to Loren in the amount of $26,766 and to Judith in the amount of $25,743. The Riepmas filed a motion for new trial or remittitur of the verdict. The trial court overruled this motion and they now appeal.
Scope of review.
We review the denial of a motion for new trial for correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 4; Johnson v. Knoxville Community Sch. Dist., 570 N.W.2d 633, 635 (Iowa 1997). However, if the motion is based on a discretionary ground, we review for abuse of discretion. Condon Auto Sales & Service, Inc. v. Crick, 604 N.W.2d 587, 594 (Iowa 1999). A ruling on a motion for new trial following a jury verdict is a discretionary matter. Id. In ruling on motions for new trial, the trial court has a broad, but not unlimited, discretion in determining whether the verdict effectuates substantial justice between the parties. See Iowa R. App. P. 14(f)(3). The discretion must not be exercised arbitrarily but must have support in the record. Id.; Riley v. Wilson Concrete Co., 184 N.W.2d 689, 690 (Iowa 1971). We are generally reluctant to interfere with a jury verdict and give considerable deference to a trial court's decision not to grant a new trial. Spaur v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 510 N.W.2d 854, 869 (Iowa 1994).
Whether the awards are supported by substantial evidence. The jury awarded damages for both Loren and Judith Sorenson in the following six areas: past medical expenses, Loren, $2,729 and Judith, $2,051; future medical expenses, Loren, $1,170 and Judith, $1,008; past loss of function, Loren, $5,475 and Judith, $5,475; future loss of function, Loren, $5,000 and Judith, $5,110; past pain and suffering, Loren, $7,500 and Judith, $7,500; and future pain and suffering, Loren, $4,892 and Judith, $4,599. The Riepmas do not dispute the amount awarded for past medical expenses but contend the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings in the other five areas. The Riepmas claim that because the parties were under chiropractic care prior to the accident, the jury should have found they had pre-existing conditions, which degenerate over time rather than finding the injuries attributable to what she claims was a minor car accident. They assert the Sorensons' conditions had worsened because of the aging process rather than as a result of being struck from behind by her vehicle.
<
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.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|