 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pugliese v. Perdue9/3/1999
ceded that Pugliese's claims were to some minimal extent valid and deserved to be compensated. Counsel later expressly conceded the point by telling the jury that Pugliese was "entitled to some compensation" and that it "just wouldn't be fair and just" to award him nothing. But these frank concessions do not qualify as binding judicial admissions under the Hayes test: they are all framed as counsel's personal opinions or as proposed legal Conclusions. They are substantially similar to the statements we considered in Hayes. For this reason, we hold that counsel's statements were not binding admissions because they were "not the clear, deliberate and unequivocal statements of fact necessary for a judicial admission."
Because the verdict did not conflict with any binding admissions as to causation, it follows that the trial court did not err in denying a new trial on that basis.
B. A New Trial Is Necessary because the Verdict Is against the Weight of the Evidence.
Pugliese argues in the alternative that the superior court should have granted a new trial because the "evidence supporting the verdict was completely lacking or so slight and unconvincing" that the verdict was plainly unreasonable and unjust.
Alaska Civil Rule 59(a) allows the court to grant a new trial "if required in the interest of Justice." The decision to grant or deny a new trial is within the trial court's discretion. We will affirm a trial court's decision to deny a new trial if there is an evidentiary basis for the jury's decision. We will reverse a decision denying a new trial "if the evidence supporting the verdict was so completely lacking or slight and unconvincing as to make the verdict plainly unreasonable and unjust." In reviewing an order denying a new trial, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
Pugliese claims that the evidence fails to support the verdict because Dr. Vrablik's testimony went unrebutted; Perdue produced no contrary evidence as to the existence of a compensable injury. Perdue responds that the evidence supports the verdict because the jury simply could have concluded that Pugliese's pre-existing injuries caused his damages. But Pugliese's argument is persuasive.
The undisputed facts establish that Perdue negligently drove his pickup truck into Pugliese, a collision involving direct bodily impact. Within two days, Pugliese reported the incident to Perdue's insurance adjustor. When Pugliese later complained about his back injury to Dr. Vrablik, the doctor's examination confirmed the presence of physical symptoms consistent with Pugliese's report. Subsequent EMG testing confirmed the presence of irritation at the L-5 nerve root. And further objective tests -- X-rays and an MRI -- ruled out other potential causes.
Based on these findings, Dr. Vrablik diagnosed Pugliese as suffering from irritation of the L-5 nerve root. Because Pugliese had shown no sign of the injury during prior visits and the injury itself was consistent with the reported collision, the doctor concluded that the collision was the most likely cause of Pugliese's back problems. While Dr. Vrablik readily acknowledged that Pugliese suffered from pre- existing conditions that might predispose him to experience the kind of back and leg pain that he had reported, the doctor unequivocally testified that none of these pre-existing conditions would ordinarily have caused Pugliese's back and leg pain unless triggered by some kind of traumatic event.
Perdue nevertheless observes that Dr. Vrablik necessarily relied on Pugliese's report in attributing his injury to the collision; Perdue further observes that Pugliese's cr
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.
|
|