 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Oakman v. Wise5/25/2000
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court.
JUDGMENT: Judgment affirmed.
The instant appeal arises from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Hancock County denying a motion for new trial filed by Plaintiff-Appellant, Catherine Oakman, following a jury verdict in favor of Defendant-Appellee, Kathryn Wise, in a personal injury tort action. Consistent with the discussion set forth below, we affirm the trial court's decision.
The following provides a brief synopsis of the pertinent background facts:
The origin of this case dates back to June 14, 1990 when the parties were involved in an automobile collision in Findlay, Ohio. As a result of the accident, Appellant filed a complaint, alleging that Appellee's negligence caused her to sustain various injuries, including those to the neck, upper back and shoulders. Appellant also claimed that she suffered headaches, permanent scarring, and mental anguish due to the incident. A statement of damages was subsequently filed requesting the court to award Appellant $500,000.
The case proceeded to a jury trial in March 1994. At trial, Appellee admitted responsibility for causing the collision, but did not admit to proximate cause or the amount of damages incurred; thus, evidence concerning these issues was presented to the jury. After hearing the evidence, including testimony from several expert witnesses, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, apparently rejecting the idea that Appellee's actions proximately caused Appellant's injuries. The jury awarded zero damages to Appellant and the court entered judgment accordingly.
As a result of the adverse judgment, Appellant filed a March 30, 1994 motion for new trial pursuant to Civ.R. 59(A)(4) and (6) on the grounds that the jury awarded inadequate damages due to prejudice and that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Although the trial court denied the motion on the prejudice prong, the court agreed with Appellant's weight of the evidence argument and granted the motion for new trial in an August 3, 1994 judgment entry. Appellee took an immediate appeal from this decision. This Court affirmed the judgment in Oakman v. Wise (Mar. 16, 1995), Hancock App. No. 5-94-34, unreported.
The case then proceeded to jury trial for the second time in March 1996. After considering the evidence presented, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellee. Consequently, Appellant filed another timely motion for new trial, again alleging that the jury awarded insufficient damages due to passion or prejudice. In addition, Appellant also claimed, in accordance with Civ.R. 59(A)(7) and (9), that an error of law at trial caused the unfavorable result, and that the judgment was contrary to law.
The trial court took more than three years to rule on the matter. A December 6, 1999 judgment entry found all of Appellant's arguments to be without merit. Appellant then filed the instant appeal, stating the following as her only assignment of error:
The trial court erred to the prejudice of Plaintiff/Appellant by denying Plaintiff/Appellant's motion for a new trial.
Civ.R. 59 governs motions for new trials and provides that such motions may be granted under certain circumstances. A decision to deny a request for new trial is not subject to reversal on appeal unless the trial court abused its discretion. Dillon v. Bundy (1991), 72 Ohio App.3d 767, 773; Yungwirth v. McAvoy (1972), 32 Ohio St.2d 285. An abuse of discretion implies that the court engaged in arbitrary, unreasonable or unconscionable decision-making. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 21
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|