 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Elliott v. Birth3/19/2002
aintiff was crying. He had dried blood near the corner of his right eye, and was diagnosed with a one centimeter laceration. The cut did not require stitches, although a hospital physician told Elliott that the cut might leave a scar. Photographs taken of plaintiff after the accident were published to the jury, and plaintiff himself was shown to the jury. After the accident, Elliott and his wife treated plaintiff's cut with ointment and small bandages. Plaintiff did not like being bandaged, making the recommended treatment difficult to apply. In addition, plaintiff suffered from nightmares for a month after the accident. After his examination at the emergency room, plaintiff did not require any further medical treatment or counseling related to the accident. Plaintiff submitted evidence that his medical bills from the accident totaled $216.
Based upon this evidence, the trial court instructed the jury on actual damages proximately resulting from the accident, but denied plaintiff's request for an instruction on permanent injury . On the issue of damages, the court instructed in relevant part as follows:
ll damages are to be awarded in one lump sum[, and] may include medical expenses, pain and suffering, scars or disfigurement. Medical expenses include all hospital, doctors, drugs reasonably paid or incurred by the plaintiff as a consequence of theirinjury. Damages for personal injury may also include fair compensation for the actual physical pain and mental suffering experienced by the plaintiff as a consequence of injury. . . . You will determine what is fair compensation by applying logic and common sense to the evidence.
The jury awarded plaintiff $350, which is $134 more than his actual expenses. This award does not support a conclusion that the jury completely disregarded plaintiff's uncontroverted evidence of damages. Nor does the evidence establish unequivocally plaintiff's entitlement to a higher award for pain and suffering.
This Court's examination of the record and transcript reveals evidence about plaintiff tending to establish that (1) he did not lose consciousness during the accident, and suffered no broken bones; (2) he had a bruise and a small cut from the accident; (3) the cut did not require stitches, or any treatment beyond Neosporin and butterfly band aids; (4) plaintiff required no further medical treatment after his emergency room visit, and; (5) the jury was able to observe plaintiff first hand, to determine whether the cut left a scar. We conclude that there is ample support for the jury's award, and that the trial court erred in its conclusion that the explanation for the jury's verdict of $350.00 must be prejudice.
We also conclude that the trial court erred in finding that the jury's verdict was rendered under the influence of prejudice against Maria, based on her national origin. This allegation is not supported by the record. Although Maria was originally from Salzburg, Austria, we find nothing in the record that suggests thejury found her background to be an issue. The trial court did refer to Maria's "broken English." However, the transcript demonstrates that while Maria occasionally misused verb tenses, she did not require an interpreter, and none of her testimony required clarification due to linguistic difficulties. There was no suggestion that she found it a challenge to speak English, and the jury submitted no questions about her.
Moreover, the record does not support the trial court's finding that the jury acted in manifest disregard of the court's instruction to return a verdict that recompensed plaintiff in one lump sum for "all of his injuries, both present and future[.]" A review of the jury charge r
Page 1 2 3 4 5 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|