 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Edwards v. Haase8/1/2001
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:
Appellants, Amanda, Angela and Ronald Edwards, appeal the decision of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas denying their motion for a new trial. We affirm.
I.
The Edwardses and appellee, Jeffrey Haase ("Haase"), are neighbors. On October 5, 1997, while the Edwards and Haase children were playing, Amanda reached out to pet the Haase's family dog and the dog bit her face. The Edwardses filed a complaint against Haase raising Amanda's claim for damages and Angela and Ronald's claims for loss of consortium. Angela and Ronald are Amanda's parents.
The parties stipulated that Haase was liable and that Amanda's injuries were proximately caused by the dog bite. On August 31, 2000, a jury trial began on the sole issue of damages. The jury heard testimony from Angela, Amanda, Dr. J. Sheldon Artz, and Haase. The jury awarded Amanda $15,000 in damages and found for Haase on Angela and Ronald's loss of consortium claim.
On September 15, 2000, the Edwardses moved the trial court for a new trial pursuant to Civ.R. 59(A)(4) and (6). The trial court denied the Edwardses' motion for a new trial. This appeal followed.
II. Assignment of Error
THE TRIAL JUDGE ABUSED HIS DISCRETION BY DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL.
In their sole assignment of error, the Edwardses argue that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a new trial. The Edwardses based their motion for a new trial on Civ.R.59 (A)(4) and (6).
The relevant sections provide:
(A) Grounds. A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues upon any of the following grounds:
*
(4) Excessive or inadequate damages, appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice;
*
(6) The judgment is not sustained by the weight of the evidence; however, only one new trial may be granted on the weight of the evidence in the same case[.]
The decision as to whether a motion for new trial should be granted lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling will not be reversed upon appeal absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Verbon v. Pennese (1982), 7 Ohio App.3d 182, 184. An abuse of discretion is more than just an error of judgment or law; it implies that the trial court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219.
Since the Edwardses set forth two grounds upon which the trial court should have granted their motion for new trial, we have chosen to discuss each ground separately.
1. Inadequate Damages
The assessment of damages is generally an issue to be decided by the jury. Weidner v. Blazic (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 321, 334. A court may not award a new trial on the basis of inadequate damages unless the movant is able to establish that the verdict resulted from jury passion and prejudice and that the damages were "so overwhelmingly disproportionate as to shock reasonable sensibilities." Pena v. Northeast Ohio Emergency Affiliates, Inc. (1995), 108 Ohio App.3d 96, 104.
It has been held that the size of a verdict, without more, is insufficient to prove passion or prejudice. Weidner, 98 Ohio App.3d at 334-335. "There must be something contained in the record which the complaining party can point to that wrongfully inflamed the sensibilities of the jury." Shoemaker v. Crawford (1991), 78 O
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|