 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pugliese v. Perdue9/3/1999
ive pre-existing injuries, Richey's inability to identify any damage or repair to her vehicle caused by the accident, and a physician's testimony expressly concluding that the accident had not caused any of Richey's injuries. Yet despite all of this evidence, we expressed the view that Richey's right to recover at least some compensable damages presented a close question.
In contrast to the extensive evidence pointing to a pre- existing cause of injury in Richey, the evidence negating the existence of compensable damages here is slight and speculative. First, Pugliese's collision involved direct bodily impact. Second, while Perdue denied any immediate complaint of injury, he tempered this denial with an admission that Pugliese had "said something" about going to call the police; undisputed evidence established that Pugliese had reported the incident to Perdue's adjustor no later than two days after it occurred. Third, while the evidence leaves ample room to doubt the scope and seriousness of Pugliese's injuries, there is virtually no evidence refuting Dr. Vrablik's Conclusion that Pugliese had recently sustained a traumatic and painful injury to his lower back. No solid evidence supports Perdue's conjecture that Pugliese sustained this injury at work, rather than as a result of the collision. Finally, as we have already noted, Perdue repeatedly acknowledged the existence of at least some accident-related injury.
IV. CONCLUSION
Our review of the trial record convinces us that evidence supporting a complete denial of damages is so slight and unconvincing as to make the jury's verdict unreasonable and unjust. Because we conclude that the denial of a new trial was an abuse of discretion, we REVERSE and REMAND for a new trial.
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.
|
|