 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pugliese v. Perdue9/3/1999
's counsel again emphasized that Perdue did not dispute Pugliese's entitlement to at least some compensatory damages:
He is entitled to some compensation . I am not saying don't give him anything. That just wouldn't be fair and just. And you have promised me that you would be fair and just. Fair and just, not only to Mr. Pugliese, but fair and just to Mr. Perdue and me.
The jury nevertheless returned a verdict awarding Pugliese nothing. Before the court excused the jury, Pugliese questioned the verdict, noting that the parties had stipulated to Dr. Vrablik's medical bills of $1,057. The court instructed Pugliese to raise the objection later, by motion. Pugliese subsequently did move for a new trial, claiming that in his closing statements Perdue had admitted causing at least some damages and that, in light of this admission, the jury's verdict was unreasonable and unjust. The superior court denied this motion. Pugliese appeals.
III. PERDUE'S COUNSEL DID NOT FORMALLY ADMIT CAUSATION OF DAMAGES, BUT A NEW TRIAL IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE VERDICT IS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
A. Perdue's Counsel Did Not Formally Admit Causation of Damages.
Although Perdue conceded before trial that he was negligent, Pugliese still had the burden of proving his damages. "There are two aspects to damages. The first is causation, that is, the evidence must prove that the loss was caused by the tort. The second is amount. The party seeking damages must provide the jury with a 'reasonable basis' for computing the award." Pugliese acknowledges this burden but argues that he met it because Perdue's stipulation as to Dr. Vrablik's medical bills and his counsel's statements in closing argument amounted to binding admissions of causation that required the jury to award at least some damages. Pugliese reasons that the jury must not have "properly weigh the evidence or underst d the law or the meaning and effect of [these] conclusively established facts."
Whether Perdue made binding admissions is a question of law that we review de novo, applying our independent judgment to adopt the rule of law most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy.
Pugliese first contends that Perdue admitted causation by stipulating to compensate him for Dr. Vrablik's medical bills. But the record does not support this contention. During the trial, both counsel stated that they had stipulated to the total amount of Dr. Vrablik's billings, but neither said anything suggesting an agreement that these bills were actually compensable. In keeping with the statements of counsel, the trial court informed the jury that "the parties stipulate and you may then accept that Dr. Vrablik's bills [were] for $1,057." During his closing argument to the jury, Perdue's counsel said nothing that could reasonably be construed to expand the original scope of the stipulation. Accordingly, the record establishes that the stipulation dealt only with the amount of the billings and simply did not address compensability.
Pugliese separately contends that various statements made by Perdue's counsel during closing argument amounted to judicial admissions as to causation of damages. But a careful review of counsel's argument belies Pugliese's claim.
In Hayes v. Xerox Corporation, we held that " judicial admission, to be binding, must be one of fact and not a Conclusion of law or an expression of opinion." The admission must consist of "clear, deliberate, and unequivocal statements of fact." By arguing that "we think" Pugliese's damages were "minimal" and by accusing him of "embellishing" and of engaging in "some overstatement," defense counsel impliedly con
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|