 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kinnard v. Taylor5/25/2000
Plaintiff/appellant, Bruce L. Kinnard, appeals the judgment on the jury verdict that awarded him $5,200.00 in damages.
The facts related to the accident are not in dispute. On March 10, 1990, Kinnard and defendant, Larry Taylor, were driving north on Highway 71 in Mt. Juliet, Tennessee. Kinnard stopped in the left turn lane while waiting for traffic to proceed. Taylor struck the rear of Kinnard's automobile causing it to collide with the vehicle in front of Kinnard. Kinnard's automobile sustained damage to the bumper, bumper brackets, gas tank, and minimal damage to the front of the vehicle.
At the scene of the accident, Kinnard denied injury. Following the accident, Kinnard ran errands and then proceeded home. Later that evening, Kinnard began experiencing pain and went to the emergency room at Southern Hills Hospital. After x-rays were taken, Kinnard was treated with a cervical collar and anti-inflammatory drugs.
On March 8, 1991, Kinnard filed a complaint seeking damages for injuries sustained in the accident. After a trial on the merits, the jury returned a verdict finding for Kinnard and awarded him damages totaling $5,200.00 for past medical expenses. Kinnard filed a motion for a new trial on May 12, 1999 or alternatively for additur. In denying the motion, the trial court found no grounds to set aside the jury's verdict and order a new trial. The court found the jury's verdict within the range of reasonableness and refused to grant an additur.
Plaintiff appeals and present six issues for review. However, we perceive the sole issue to be whether the trial court erred in failing to grant a new trial due to the alleged inadequacy of the jury verdict.
Kinnard contends that the jury's award is insufficient, because the verdict "barely covers initial medical expenses, provides nothing for lost wages and/or pain and suffering, and is consequently below the lower level of reasonableness."
In Miller v. Williams, 970 S.W.2d 497 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998), this Court, in an opinion authored by Judge Susano, succinctly stated the principles we must observe in deciding the issue before the Court in this case. The Court stated:
In this case, we must decide if the record contains "material evidence to support the [jury's] verdict." Rule 13(d), T.R.A.P.; Coffey v. Fayette Tubular Products, 929 S.W.2d 326, 331 n.2 (Tenn. 1996); Poole v. Kroger Co., 604 S.W.2d 52, 54 (Tenn. 1980); Pettus v. Hurst, 882 S.W.2d 783, 788 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993); Benson v. Tennessee Valley Elec. Coop., 868 S.W.2d 630, 640 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993). Because Miller asserts that the jury's award is insufficient, our focus is on the "lower limit" of the "range of reasonableness." Foster v. Amcon Int'l, Inc., 621 S.W.2d 142, 146 (Tenn. 1981). In the Foster case, the Supreme Court stated that
reasoned examination of the credible proof of damages leads to a determination of the figure beyond which excessiveness or inadequacy lies and beyond which there is no evidence, upon any reasonable view of the case, to support the verdict. Id.
In reviewing the adequacy of the jury's award, we note that
[the determination of] the amount of compensation in a personal injury case is primarily for the jury, and that next to the jury, the most competent person to pass on the matter is the trial judge who presided at the trial and heard the evidence. Id. at 143-44; Coffey, 929 S.W.2d at 331 n.2.
The effect of a trial court's approval of the amount of a jury award is clear:
... the trial judge's approval of the amount of the jury's verdict invokes the material evidence rule, just as it does with respect to
Page 1 2 3 4 Tennessee 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
|