 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
White v. Jensen9/23/2002
Plaintiffs/appellees June Jensen and Tonya Floyd each filed complaints against defendants Kerry White and David Holcombe, jointly and severally, seeking to recover damages for injuries they allegedly received when the car in which they were riding overturned. The cases were tried together, and the jury returned a verdict for Jensen against both defendants in the amount of $50,793.00 and for Floyd against both defendants in the amount of $43,288.00. Jensen subsequently moved to amend the final judgment to include an award of pre-judgment interest. The trial court amended the judgment, and awarded $15,649.31 against defendant White as unliquidated damages pursuant to OCGA § 51-12-14. White now appeals the judgment and amended judgment for Jensen, and that appeal has been docketed in this Court as Case Number A02A1578. White also appeals the judgment for Floyd, and that appeal has been docketed in this Court as Case Number A02A1579.
CASE NUMBER A02A1578.
1. White first contends that the trial court should have granted the defendants' motion for directed verdict on Jensen's claim for future medical expenses because the only evidence of the amount of those expenses was the treating orthopedic surgeon's "guess" as to how much a future surgical procedure to repair Jensen's knee would cost. As pertinent to this issue, the transcript shows the doctor testified as follows: "I'm pretty much guessing. With the total surgical charge and a facility fee from the hospital, probably between five and seven thousand dollars total . . . with anesthesia included." We find this testimony, which listed the specific costs included in the figure given, was sufficient to authorize an award for future medical expenses. Food Lion, Inc. v. Williams, 219 Ga. App. 352, 355 (2) (464 SE2d 913) (1995); see also Bull Street Church of Christ v. Jensen, 233 Ga. App. 96, 102-103 (3) (504 SE2d 1) (1998).
2. White also contends that the trial court erred by amending the judgment to award pre-judgment interest because the aggregate sum Jensen demanded in her settlement letters was greater than the judgment entered on the jury's verdict. The record shows that prior to trial Jensen sent separate settlement demand letters to each defendant pursuant to OCGA § 51-2-14, the Unliquidated Damages Interest Act. The settlement amount demanded against White was $40,000; the amount demanded against Holcombe was $50,000. Judgment was entered on the jury verdict for $50,193 against both defendants, jointly and severally.
Citing Wolf Camera v. Royter, 253 Ga. App. 254, 261 (558 SE2d 797) (2002) and Bullman v. Tenneco Oil Co., 197 Ga. App. 408, 409-410 (398 SE2d 311) (1990), White argues that the award of prejudgment interest must be reversed because the aggregate sum demanded against both defendants, $90,000, was greater than the amount of the judgment awarded Jensen following trial. We agree that those cases are controlling here. As we explained in Wolf Camera:
The Unliquidated Damages Interest Act establishes specific procedures for the recovery of prejudgment interest. OCGA § 51-12-14. As the statute is in derogation of the common law, it must be strictly construed. Claimants who give the requisite statutory written notice and demand can recoup prejudgment interest `on the amount demanded if, upon trial of the case in which the claim is made, the judgment is for an amount not less than the amount demanded. OCGA § 51-12-14 (a). (Citation omitted.) Kuhl v. Shepard, [226 Ga. App. 439, 440 (487 SE2d 68) (1997)]. As an initial matter, (a)lthough the law in this state encourages the resolution in one action of all claims arising from a single occurrence or transaction, each letter sent by [plaintiff] offered to
Page 1 2 3 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|