 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Greenwood v. Mitchell8/16/2000
special verdict number 1 Mitchell was at fault and answered the question form "yes." The jury answered the remaining special verdict form numbers by finding Mitchell's fault was a proximate cause of appellant Greenwood's damage and found Greenwood was also at fault. The jury also found Greenwood's fault was a proximate cause of his damage and lastly, the jury determined Greenwood's fault constituted sixty percent of the fault, proximately causing his damage and Mitchell's fault constituted the remaining forty percent. Accordingly, the jury did not answer any further questions. The trial court asked the jury whether they understood that pursuant to their verdict, they were finding Greenwood sixty percent at fault for failing to mitigate his damages. The jury acknowledged that was in fact their finding.
In view of the above proceedings we determine appellant was not prejudiced from the trial courts giving the jury the failure to mitigate instruction.
We hold there was substantial evidence for the jury to make its determination.
II.
The appellant Greenwood claims the jury's verdict does not constitute substantial justice.
Our review on this issue is for abuse of discretion. Iowa R. App. P. 14(f)(3) (1999); Johnson v. Knoxville Community School Dist., 570 N.W.2d 633, 635 (Iowa 1997). According to this standard rulings of a trial court are presumably correct and will be disturbed on appeal only upon a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Glenn v. Carlstrom, 556 N.W.2d 800, 804 (Iowa 1996).
Appellant Greenwood relies upon the supreme court decision in Johnson v. Knoxville Community School District, 570 N.W.2d 633 (Iowa 1997). There the Supreme Court focused on a situation where there was (1) an admission of negligence by the defendant; (2) substantial evidence that said negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiff's damages; and (3) the jury's verdict failed to award damages to the plaintiff. Johnson, 570 N.W.2d at 642. In that case the Iowa Supreme Court concluded the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a new trial since a jury's decision failed to effectuate substantial justice between the parties. Id. The facts in Johnson are distinguishable from the case before us. In Johnson the defendant admitted negligence, and the jury failed to award any damages to the plaintiff. The negligence of the plaintiff was not an issue as it is in this case. In Johnson the jury failed to award damages to the plaintiff that he had incurred directly after the accident, even though the defendant had stipulated to the amount of those damages and had not controverted they were proximately caused by the accident. In this case the jury could determine Greenwood's fault following the accident could prevent him from any recovery because of his failure to mitigate damages. The jury in Johnson failed to award uncontested damages, while the jury in this case determined claimant's fault prevented his recovery from any contested damages.
We hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion on this issue. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.
|