 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Price v. Rezac9/18/2002
Decision and Journal Entry
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made:
Appellant, Carl Price, appeals the decision of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, which rendered judgment in favor of appellant in his personal injury action. This Court reverses and remands for a new trial.
I.
On October 12, 1998, appellant and appellee, Sheryl Rezac, were involved in an automobile accident. Appellee's vehicle collided into appellant's vehicle, from which appellant sustained injuries to his neck and right shoulder. Appellant visited several doctors and underwent physical therapy and surgery on his right shoulder. He incurred medical expenses through the year 2000.
On September 29, 2000, appellant filed a complaint against appellee in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, seeking compensation for the personal injuries and pain and suffering appellant incurred due to the automobile accident. Appellant's wife, Dannette Price, also brought a loss of consortium claim against appellee.
The case went to trial on November 27, 2001. Appellee admitted negligence, leaving only the jury with the issue of damages. At the close of the trial, the jury awarded appellant $1,810.00 in damages, the exact amount of his medical bills from October 12, 1998, the date of the accident, until December 3, 1998. The jury awarded appellant's wife $15,000.00 for loss of consortium. Appellant's wife did not appeal her award.
Appellant timely appealed and has set forth two assignments of error for review.
II.
FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT BY ENTERING JUDGMENT ON THE JURY'S VERDICT AWARDING ONLY THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S MEDICAL EXPENSES INCURRED UP UNTIL DECEMBER 3, 1998. SUCH AN AWARD WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE ALL OF THE EXPERT MEDICAL WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED IN THE CASE OPINED: THAT THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT EXPERIENCED PAIN AND SUFFERING AS A DIRECT AN PROXIMATE RESULT OF THE AUTOMOBILE COLLISION WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS CASE; THAT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S MEDICAL EXPENSES AFTER DECEMBER 3, 1998 WERE AT LEAST PARTIALLY RELATED TO THE COLLISION; AND, THAT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S INJURIES RESULTING FROM THE COLLISION WERE PERMANENT."
In his first assignment of error, appellant asserts that it was error for the trial court to enter judgment on the jury's verdict, which awarded appellant damages only for medical expenses incurred up until December 3, 1998. Appellant specifically argues that the award was against the manifest weight of the evidence because all of the expert medical witnesses who testified in the case opined that: (1) appellant experienced pain and suffering as a direct and proximate result of the automobile collision which is the subject matter of this case, that (2) appellant's medical expenses after December 3, 1998, were at least partially related to the collision, and that (3) appellant's injuries resulting from the collision were permanent. This Court agrees.
When evaluating whether the judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence, this Court applies the same test in civil cases as it does in criminal cases. Tewarson v. Simon (2001), 141 Ohio App. 3d 103, 115. This Court must:
"Review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine whether in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the jury clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the [judgment] mus
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|