 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorensen v. Riepma2/28/2001
BR>
Although Loren and Judith were seventy-two and sixty-five years of age respectively at the time of trial and had some health issues prior to the accident, we find the record contains substantial evidence to support the jury verdict. Dr. Kennedy, the Sorensons' chiropractor, testified that although he was treating the Sorensons prior to the accident, their number of necessary treatments increased substantially following the accident. He also assigned a whole body permanent partial disability to Loren of eight to ten percent and to Judith a five percent impairment. These impairments, Dr. Kennedy opined, were a direct consequence of the impact of the accident. Additionally, the record contains evidence that the Sorensons have sustained increased pain during activities or an inability to perform certain tasks they were capable of prior to the accident related injuries. Therefore, we find the jury award is supported by sufficient evidence.
Whether the awards were blatantly excessive. Next, the Riepmas allege the verdict was so excessive as to "shock the conscience" and raise the presumption of prejudice. The jury's verdict should not be set aside or altered unless the plaintiff proves the verdict: (1) is flagrantly excessive or inadequate; (2) is so out of reason as to shock the conscience or sense of justice; (3) raises a presumption it is the result of passion, prejudice or other ulterior motive; or (4) is lacking in evidential support. Gorden v. Carey, 603 N.W.2d 588, 590 (Iowa 1999). Here, Ms. Riepma asserts the $52,509 verdict for the Sorensons was so excessive as to "shock the conscience." The Riepmas contend the verdicts were so lacking in substantial evidence as to create an inference of bias among the jury. We find, however, the verdict is reasonable considering the age of the plaintiffs and the pain, medical expenses, and loss of function suffered from back injuries sustained when their stopped vehicle was struck from behind. It is the province of the jury to decide the weight of the evidence presented. See Seastrom v. Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co., 601 N.W.2d 339, 346 (Iowa 1999).
Additionally, the Riepmas argue the verdict raises the strong presumption the jury was motivated by sympathy for the Sorensons because they are "elderly, genuinely nice people and retired." They present no evidence to support such a statement, except their own perceptions and the fact that the jury decided in favor of the Sorensons. We find this claim is meritless and unsupported by any evidence in the record.
In the alternative to a new trial, the Riepmas request a remittitur be ordered to substantiate justice. We find, however, the award granted by the jury is reasonable and supported by the evidence and, therefore, we will not set it aside or alter it. See Condon Auto Sales & Service, Inc., 604 N.W.2d at 594. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
|