 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Norfolk Southern Railway Co.6/2/2000
question for the jury. The jury returned a general verdict; therefore, we do not know how much of the $700,000 verdict was based on economic loss. However, Johnson's testimony was a sufficient basis for the jury to determine that Bradley's economic loss was $324,395.
In addition, " his Court has long held that ` here is no fixed standard for ascertainment of compensatory damages recoverable ... for physical pain and mental suffering' and that `the amount of such award is left to the sound discretion of the jury, subject only to correction by the court for clear abuse or passionate exercise of that discretion.'" Daniels v. East Alabama Paving, Inc., 740 So. 2d 1033, 1044 (Ala. 1999) (quoting Alabama Power Co. v. Mosley, 294 Ala. 394, 401, 318 So. 2d 260, 266 (1975)). There was much evidence in this case regarding the pain that Bradley incurred from his injury , as well as Dr. Davis's prognosis that Bradley will continue to have chronic back problems. "Jury verdicts are presumed correct, `especially where damages awarded are for pain and suffering.'" Daniels, 740 So. 2d at 1045 (quoting Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Parker, 451 So. 2d 786, 788 (Ala. 1984)).
In its order denying Norfolk Southern's motion for a new trial or a remittitur, the trial court stated: "While the Court may well have [awarded] a different [amount] in this case, it cannot conclude that the jury's verdict was the result of passion, bias, corruption or other improper motives." The trial court is in the best position to decide whether a particular verdict is the result of bias, prejudice, or passion. However, reviewing this case on appeal, we must determine whether the verdict "shock the conscience of this Court." Daniels, 740 So. 2d at 1049. This Court also might have awarded a different amount if this Court had been the fact-finder; however, we cannot conclude that the jury's verdict shocks the conscience of this Court.
The jury verdict was not "flawed." The amount of damages was supported by the evidence, and the record does not indicate the verdict was the result of bias, prejudice, or passion. Therefore, the trial court did not err in denying Norfolk Southern's motion for a new trial or a remittitur.
AFFIRMED.
Maddox, Houston, Lyons, Brown, Johnstone, and England, JJ., concur.
Cook and See, JJ., concur in the result.
|