 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
New v. Titan Tire Corp.8/29/2001
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.
Defendant corporation appeals from the district court's denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict and motion for new trial following an adverse jury verdict in the plaintiffs' personal injury case.
AFFIRMED.
The defendant, Titan Tire Corporation, appeals from the district court's denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict and motion for new trial following an adverse jury verdict in the plaintiffs' personal injury case. Titan Tire contends the district court erred in admitting expert testimony on loss of future income damages where the expert relied upon data that allegedly had no basis in fact. We affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
Titan Tire owns and operates a tire manufacturing plant in Des Moines. Mark and Lisa New at all times relevant have been residents of El Dorado, Arkansas. In January 1999, Mark New was a self-employed truck driver. He owned his own truck and drove for a company based in Akron, Ohio.
On January 8, 1999, Mark sustained injuries when he fell into a service pit while delivering a load in Des Moines at a facility owned by Titan Tire . Mark and his wife, Lisa, filed suit against Titan Tire, seeking damages for Mark's personal injuries and lost income. Lisa sought damages for loss of consortium. The case proceeded to trial before a jury in May 2000.
Prior to trial, the News identified Wayne Newkirk, Ph.D., an economist, as an expert who would testify concerning Mark's loss of income due to the incident at issue. The News served Titan Tire with a copy of Dr. Newkirk's detailed written report concerning Mark's past and future loss of income. Titan Tire conducted a discovery deposition of Dr. Newkirk. Titan Tire never designated any expert witness for trial.
After a two-day trial, the jury awarded damages to Mark in the amount of $293,071 and to Lisa in the amount of $35,000. Titan Tire filed post-trial motions seeking a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, a new trial. The court denied the post- trial motions. Titan Tire appeals.
Expert Witness Testimony.
The admissibility of expert opinion testimony is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court. Kirk v. Union Pacific R.R., 514 N.W.2d 734, 738 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994). "We will not reverse the trial court's receipt [of expert opinion evidence] absent a manifest abuse of that discretion to the prejudice of the complaining party." Leaf v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 590 N.W.2d 525, 531 (Iowa 1999) (quoting Iowa-Illinois Gas & Elec. Co. v. Black & Veatch, 497 N.W.2d 821, 827 (Iowa 1993)). "We are committed to a liberal rule on the admission of opinion testimony, and only in clear cases of abuse would the admission of such evidence be found to be prejudicial." Id. To show an abuse of discretion, one must show the court exercised its discretion "on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable." Kirk, 514 N.W.2d at 738 (quoting State v. Blackwell, 238 N.W.2d 131, 138 (Iowa 1976)). "As long as there is some support in the record for the trial court's action, we will not reverse." Id. (quoting Hunter v. Board of Trustees, 481 N.W.2d 510, 519 (Iowa 1992)).
Titan Tire argues the admission of Dr. Newkirk's future lost wages testimony prejudiced Titan Tire and amounted to the admission of testimony with no basis in fact. The News disagree, and add that Titan Tire failed to preserve error on the issue. We need not address the preservation of error issue, because we agree with the News on the merits.
Page 1 2 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|