 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Russom v. McClore5/10/2000
ssue is taken regarding the inadequacy of the amount of the verdict, our review is subject to the rule that the jury's award should not be disturbed if it is supported by any material evidence. See Hunter v. Burke, 958 S.W.2d 751, 757 (Tenn. Ct. App.1997); Reynolds v. Ozark Motor Lines, Inc., 887 S.W.2d 822, 823 (Tenn.1994); Whitaker v. Harmon, 879 S.W.2d 865, 867 (Tenn. Ct. App.1994). Under this standard, we find that the damage award should be upheld.
At trial, the Russoms presented evidence of medical expenses totaling around seventy-three hundred dollars. The Russoms were unable to show evidence of any other significant harm that would result in additional damages. Mr. Russom's income did not noticeably decline following the accident. In fact, his income showed improvement in the years after the incident and Russom was able to continue working. Excerpts from the deposition of Russom's physician indicated that Russom would fully recover in time. Based on the aforementioned, we find that the damage award was supported by material evidence. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for new trial premised on the inadequacy of the damage award.
B. Jury Instruction
As a secondary issue, the Russoms assert that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the issue of pre-existing injury and aggravation of pre-existing injury. We find it unnecessary to address this issue. The Russoms did not object to the charge as given, and did not make a request for a special charge including an instruction of pre-existing injury. In order for an appellant to predicate error on an alleged omission in the jury charge, the appellant must have made an appropriate request for the omitted instruction at trial. See Rule v. Empire Gas Corp., 563 S.W.2d 551, at 554 (Tenn. 1978) citing Rule 51.02 Tenn. R. Civ. P.; see also Rule 36(a) Tenn. R. App. P. This issue is without merit.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed. Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellants, Harold and Dora Russom, for which execution may issue if necessary.
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|