 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tasch v. Chancey3/1/2002
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas which, following a jury trial, granted appellees, William and Linda Tasch, a new trial. This matter arose out of an automobile collision which occurred on or about April 11, 1995, between Mr. Tasch and Lori L. Chancey, appellant. Appellees sued Chancey and their underinsured motorists carrier, Ohio Farmers Insurance Company ("Farmers"). The jury awarded Mr. Tasch $75,000 for his injuries and awarded $15,000 to Mrs. Tasch on her consortium claim. Appellees filed a motion for new trial, pursuant to Civ.R. 59(A)(6), arguing that the jury failed to award damages for future medical expenses, pain and suffering. On November 29, 2000, the trial court granted appellees' motion and ordered a new trial.
Appellants appealed the trial court's November 29, 2000 judgment granting appellees a new trial. Farmers raises the following assignments of error:
"1. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANTS BY APPLYING THE WRONG STANDARD IN GRANTING THE MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.
"2. THE COURT BELOW ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY HOLDING THAT THE JURY'S AWARD OF DAMAGES WAS INADEQUATE, WITHOUT ANY FINDING OF PASSION OR PREJUDICE AS REQUIRED BY CIV. R. 59(A)(4)
"3. THE COURT BELOW ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ORDERING A NEW TRIAL, AND ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT"
Additionally, Chancey raises the following assignments of error:
"I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN USING THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD INSTEAD OF THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD IN GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL.
"II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING APPELLEES' MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
SINCE THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN A JUDGMENT UPON THE VERDICT OF THE JURY."
For the following reasons we reverse the decision of the trial court.
In its decision and judgment entry granting a new trial, the trial court held that Mr. Tasch's claimed injuries fell into two categories, permanent brain injury with resulting permanent psychological damage and knee injury followed by surgery and post- operation complications and permanent and disabling damage. The jury awarded $35,000 for past medical expenses and awarded amounts for past pain, suffering, inconvenience, and loss of quality of life, but awarded no amounts for any future damages. The trial court noted that there were past medical bills totaling approximately $89,000, of which only $16,342.15 related to head trauma diagnosis and treatment. As such, the trial court concluded that the remainder of the $35,000 awarded for past medical expenses was attributable to treatment of the knee injury and the resulting surgery and complications therefrom.
Based on the jury's award of past medical expenses, the trial court concluded that the jury must have determined that the knee injury was proximately caused by the collision. Because all the medical experts testified that Mr. Tasch suffered permanent physical impairment of his knee, the trial court held that the jury's verdict, awarding nothing for future damages, was not sustained by the weight of the evidence. Significantly, in granting a new trial based upon Civ.R. 59(A)(6), the trial court stated the following:
" * The instant case is a Civ.R. 59(A)(6) case, i.e. weight of the evidence. Note that the rule does not speak to 'manifest' weight of the evidence, but rather just 'weight of the evidence.' Something is 'manifest' when it jumps out of the record at you and is 'obvious to the understanding', 'unmistakable, indubitable, indisput
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|