 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[U} Villani v. Wegener3/16/2000
l court erred in denying the motion to vacate the verdict. Mr. Villani argued then, as now, that a new trial should be granted pursuant to CR 59(a)(5), (7) and (9).
Under CR 59(a) a trial court may grant a new trial for the following relevant causes:
(5) Damages so excessive or inadequate as unmistakably to indicate that the verdict must have been the result of passion or prejudice;
(7) That there is no evidence or reasonable inference from the evidence to justify the verdict or the decision, or that it is contrary to law;
(9) That substantial justice has not been done.
Passion or prejudice on the part of the jury is not grounds for a new trial under CR 59(a)(5) unless the record shows that the verdict was not within the range of proven damages. Hoglund v. Raymark Indus., Inc., 50 Wn. App. 360, 373, 749 P.2d 164 (1987). The granting of a new trial under CR 59(a)(9) for lack of substantial justice is relatively rare because CR 59(a) gives eight other broad grounds for granting new trials. Kohfeld v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 85 Wn. App. 34, 41, 931 P.2d 911 (1997).
The determination of damages is within the constitutionally recognized province of the jury, and courts are reluctant to interfere with the jury's award when it is fairly made. Palmer v. Jensen, 132 Wn.2d 193, 197, 937 P.2d 597 (1997); Sofie v. Fibreboard Corp., 112 Wn.2d 636, 646, 771 P.2d 711, 780 P.2d 260 (1989). We review a trial court's denial of a CR 59(a) motion for a new trial for abuse of discretion. Palmer, 132 Wn.2d at 197. Abuse of discretion occurs only when it can be said that no reasonable person would have taken the view adopted by the trial court. State v. Blight, 89 Wn.2d 38, 41, 569 P.2d 1129 (1977). 'Where sufficient evidence exists to support the verdict, it is an abuse of discretion to grant a new trial.' Palmer, 132 Wn.2d at 197-98 (citing McUne v. Fuqua, 45 Wn.2d 650, 653, 277 P.2d 324 (1954); Ide v. Stoltenow, 47 Wn.2d 847, 848, 289 P.2d 1007 (1955)).
In this case, Dr. Sears testified that Mr. Villani suffered some cervical strain due to the car accident, but he stated that more probably than not the symptoms after late August 1996 were caused by the hug from Mr. Villani's girlfriend. Accordingly, he agreed that medical treatments through September 16, 1996 were probably reasonable. He also agreed that it could be argued that reasonable treatments for the car accident injury continued through October. Exhibit 3 indicates that treatment through September 16, 1996 totaled $954.45; through October 1996, $1,785. The jury's award of damages--$979--is clearly within the range of credible evidence.
Because sufficient evidence exists in the record to support the verdict and the award is not so disproportionate as to indicate it was the result of passion or prejudice, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
Schultheis, J.
WE CONCUR:
Kurtz, C.J.
Brown, J.
|