 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Larsen v. Decker2/17/2000
trial court's discretion. We find nothing to the contrary in Butler v. Wong, 117 Ariz. 395, 573 P.2d 86 (App. 1977). There, Division Two of this court held that an expert's inconclusive testimony linking an auto accident to deafness was not alone enough to be considered by the jury but that the testimony could be considered when it also eliminated a possible cause of the injury. See id. at 398-99, 573 P.2d at 89-90.
No testimony aside from Larsen's positively attributed her back complaints to the auto accident, and Calderone's equivocal testimony did not eliminate the other explanation--aging--as a cause.
We find no abuse of discretion under these circumstances. Larsen's medical records were not automatically admissible without some testimony to establish that treatment by certain doctors for injuries sustained in the auto accident was necessary.
D. Motion for New Trial
Third, Larsen argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion for new trial for insufficiency of the evidence. Trial courts have discretion to grant such a motion only when the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. See Styles v. Ceranski, 185 Ariz. 448, 450, 916 P.2d 1164, 1166 (App. 1996). We will not reverse a denial of such a motion unless the record and circumstances show it was a manifest abuse of discretion. See id. Further, we give great deference to the jury's factual findings. See City of Phoenix v. Mangum, 185 Ariz. 31, 34, 912 P.2d 35, 38 (App. 1996).
Larsen is entitled to recover in tort "those damages which are the direct and proximate consequence of the defendant's wrongful acts." Valley Nat'l Bank v. Brown, 110 Ariz. 260, 264, 517 P.2d 1256, 1260 (1974). Further, a damages award is within the jury's province and "will not be disturbed on appeal except where the verdict is so exorbitant as to show passion, prejudice, mistake or complete disregard of the evidence." Id. If, however, the award clearly is unsupported by the evidence admitted, a trial court may grant a new trial. See Anderson v. Muniz, 21 Ariz. App. 25, 28, 515 P.2d 52, 55 (1973). Unlike Anderson, in this case the evidence did not uniformly and clearly establish a causal connection between all of the medical bills offered and Decker's conduct. As discussed above, much of the medical evidence was equivocal, and thus the jury had to determine how much damage to allocate to the auto accident. Even an apparently inadequate verdict may be adequate when the jury accepts some and rejects other evidence. See id. We find no error.
III. CONCLUSION
WE AFFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND THE TRIAL COURT'S DENIAL OF LARSEN'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.
PHILIP E. TOCI, Presiding Judge
CONCURRING:
RUDOLPH J. GERBER, Judge THOMAS C. KLEINSCHMIDT, Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|