 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kolomichuk v. Grega9/20/2001
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
Peter Kolomichuk appeals from an order of the common pleas court denying his motion for a new trial following a $20,000 jury verdict he obtained in connection with his action for negligence against Francis Grega arising out of a rear-end motor vehicle collision. On appeal, Kolomichuk asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial because he claims that the jury's award of damages is inadequate, against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the result of passion or prejudice. After a careful review of the record and applicable law, we have concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion, therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court.
The record here reveals that on December 4, 1998, Grega drove his vehicle into the rear end of Kolomichuk's vehicle at a traffic light on Pearl Road. After the accident, Kolomichuk drove off and later that evening went to work, but left work early and visited the Kaiser emergency room for soreness in his arms and legs.
Grega did not dispute negligence in the case, therefore the court submitted the issue of damages to a jury at trial.
Kolomichuk testified that prior to impact, he leaned across the front seat of his car in order to close a vent window on the passenger side. Grega testified that he had been stopped at the traffic light for about sixty seconds, five feet behind Kolomichuk, when his foot slipped off the brake causing his car to bump into Kolomichuk's car.
Also at trial, Kolomichuk offered evidence of his medical bills totaling $15,819.44 and testified that he could no longer do things that he enjoyed doing before the accident because of his pain. In addition, he testified that, due to the December 4, 1998 accident, he could not work steadily. In support of this claim, he introduced a statement which he prepared and which his employer stamped tabulating his lost wages at $14,000. He also testified that he took a three-week vacation to Hawaii in 1999, following a week he could not work because of back problems.
The trial also included a videotaped deposition of Dr. Maria Griffiths, who diagnosed Kolomichuk as suffering from a lumbar strain, a cervical strain, and chronic pain, which she opined to have been caused by the accident. She testified in addition that the injuries would continue to affect Kolomichuk and estimated future medical bills for physical therapy and vocational rehabilitation to be $3,000 a year.
Following the trial, the jury returned a verdict awarding Kolomichuk $20,000. He then filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Civ.R. 59(A) or, in the alternative, additur, asserting the jury verdict to be against the manifest weight of the evidence and the result of passion or prejudice. The court denied his request and Kolomichuk now appeals.
His sole assignment of error states:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING APPELLANT KOLOMICHUK'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ADDITUR BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGES AWARDED BY THE JURY ARE INADEQUATE, AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, AND THE RESULT OF PASSION OR PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO OHIO RULE CIVIL PROCEDURE 59(A).
Kolomichuk asserts that he is entitled to a new trial because the evidence regarding his medical bills, lost wages, and past and future pain and suffering were uncontroverted, therefore the jury award appears to be the result of passion or prejudice. He also asserts that the jury award is not supported by the evidence, contending that the jury had failed to consider certain elements of damages raised by uncontroverted expert testimony, specifically, his pai
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|