 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sulentic v. Heffron6/28/2000
t adopted an inflexible rule that every verdict awarding only damages for medical expenses in a personal injury action is inadequate as a matter of law. Id.
Sulentic testified at trial to his current complaints. He still had pins in his leg, his ankle is swollen, and he broke his wrist. Sulentic also claims he was unable to perform or limited in the performance of the following activities: hunting, mushroom hunting, fishing, gardening, and walking.
Although the past medical expenses were within the range of evidence, we find the remaining damage awarded by the jury to be wholly inadequate based on the severity of the injuries Sulentic suffered. Here the evidence clearly does not support the award made and the verdict is not within the reasonable range as indicated by the evidence. Heffron admits the "jury's award of damages in this case is clearly the result of a compromise." We conclude a new trial must be granted on damages. Heffron requests if a new trial is granted, it be granted on all issues including liability.
As a general rule, new trials will be granted as to the whole case and on all of the issues, and seldom on the issue of damages only, except where liability of a defendant is definitely established. Householder v. Town of Clayton, 221 N.W.2d 488, 493 (Iowa 1974). Where it appears from the jury award there was a compromise on liability, a new trial should be granted on all of the issues. Id. The general rule in this regard is a new trial should never be ordered on the question of damages alone when there is ground for a strong suspicion or inference that the jury awarded excessive or inadequate damages to plaintiff as a result of a compromise involving the question of liability. Id. In reviewing the record in the instant case, we find the evidence warrants a new trial on both damages and liability.
III. Reduction of Medical Expenses.
Sulentic contends the district court erred when it reduced his medical expenses by the amounts paid by Medicare. He relies on the collateral source rule and section 668.14 as preventing the district court from reducing his past medical expenses in this manner.
Based on our decision in this case, there is no need to discuss this issue. We are aware both parties agree this is an issue that may come up again in the future. However, we decline the invitation to address it here.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR NEW TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES.
Page 1 2 3 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|