 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bottoms v. West5/24/2000
ision. They also answered "0" to questions asking what sum of money would fairly and reasonably compensate Mr. Bottoms for his loss of consortium or loss of household services resulting from Mrs. Bottoms's injuries.
West objected to Question One, which originally did not contain the two "if any" phrases, arguing the question presumed that any collision between Mrs. Bottoms and West proximately caused injury to Mrs. Bottoms. The court initially overruled the objection but, after further discussion with counsel for both sides, the court added the "if any" phrases. The next question allowed the jury to determine what, if any, damages the Bottoms sustained as a result of the accident.
Further, Question One included three different inquiries:
(1) whether West was negligent, (2) whether this negligence proximately caused physical injury to Mrs. Bottoms; and (3) whether West's negligence was the proximate cause of damage to the vehicle driven by Mrs. Bottoms. The record reflects, that, during deliberations, the jury sent out a note asking:
"Can we, the jury, answer the three questions posed, in question 1, independent of each other." This indicates that the jury did not believe the answer to all three questions would be the same. The jury awarded $1,600 to Mr. Bottoms for the damage done to the vehicle, indicating that they found West was negligent and his negligence was the proximate cause of damage to the vehicle, explaining the "yes" answer to the question.
We conclude the jury's answer to Question One does not constitute a finding by the jury that West's negligence proximately caused physical injury to Mrs. Bottoms, thereby requiring the jury to award damages for physical injury. From our review of the record and the relevant case law, we conclude the jury's finding of no damages for personal injury to Mrs. Bottoms and loss of consortium and household services to Mr. Bottoms is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust. The jury, having heard evidence that the collision could have been a minimal impact occurring at a low speed, and that the type of injuries sustained by Mrs. Bottoms could have been caused by her pre-existing condition and aggravated by other circumstances, was free to believe the accident did not cause her injuries.
Finding no reversible error, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
ED KINKEADE, JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
99221.OP
|