 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hall v. Kreider Manufacturing12/11/2003
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
DECISION
. Plaintiff-appellant, Anthony Hall, appeals a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas which found in his favor and awarded $30,000 in damages in his negligence action against defendants-appellees, Kreider Manufacturing, Inc., Richard Kreider and Richard Boettner, III.
. Appellant is a dentist in his mid-thirties. In June 1998, appellant was injured in an automobile accident caused by appellee, Richard Kreider. Although appellant suffered multiple injuries, the most longstanding of these was an injury to his wrist which later required surgery. Despite the surgery and subsequent physical therapy, appellant continued to experience pain in his wrist when performing extractions while practicing dentistry. Appellant maintains that his inability to perform extractions has resulted in, and will permanently result in, his inability to achieve his potential income, and that the $30,000 jury award does not fully compensate him for his future lost wages.
. Appellant initiated his complaint in June 2000, and the matter was set for a jury trial before a magistrate of the trial court. During the trial, appellant presented testimony by an accountant who opined that appellant had suffered future lost earnings in the amount of approximately $2 million. Upon a directed verdict motion by appellee, the court instructed the jury not to consider any damages for future lost earnings on the basis that appellant had not first established the permanency of his injuries.
. Appellant now assigns the following as error:
The trial court erred when it refused to submit the testimony of Hall's economic expert for future damages for consideration by the jury.
. The admissibility of evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Robb (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 59, 68. "Absent an abuse of discretion, as well as a showing that the opposing party has suffered material prejudice, an appellate court will not disturb a ruling by a trial court as to the admissibility of evidence." Millstone Dev., Ltd. v. Berry, Franklin App. No. 01AP-907, 2002-Ohio-2241, at . An abuse of discretion "connotes more than an error of law; it implies that the court acted unreasonably, arbitrarily or unconscionably." Rigby v. Lake Cty. (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 269, 271.
. In ruling on a motion for directed verdict, a trial court must construe the evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion is made. Civ.R. 50(A)(4); Strother v. Hutchinson (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 282, 284. The motion must be denied where substantial evidence upon which reasonable minds may differ supports the nonmoving party's side of the case. Posin v. A.B.C. Motor Court Hotel (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 271.
. In order to show future loss of earnings in a personal injury case, the plaintiff's evidence must demonstrate with reasonable certainty that his injury or condition prevents him from attaining his pre-injury wage. Power v. Kirkpatrick (July 20, 2000), Franklin App. No. 99AP-1026. If the injury itself, independent of other factors, provides an evidentiary basis from which the jury can conclude with reasonable certainty that future damages will probably result, the injury is of an objective nature and no expert testimony regarding permanent impairment is necessary. Ratliff v. Colasurd (Apr. 27, 1999), Franklin App. No. 98AP-504. However, in a case such as this one, where the injured person alleges that he experiences pain which limits the use of his wrist during the performance of one of his employment duties, the injury is not of an objective nature but of a subjective nature and expert testimony is requ
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|