 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Adams v. Wal-Mart Stores12/13/1999
Co., 179 N.W.2d 560, 566 (Iowa 1970). Defendant claims Payne's letter was not inconsistent with its position at trial, and thus, was not actually an admission. Defendant contends the jury instruction unduly emphasized the letter.
During the trial, Wal-Mart employees LaBet Cross and Beverly Morrison testified they never saw an accumulation of ice and snow on the ledge above the entrance to the store. Payne's letter is inconsistent with this position, and shows Wal-Mart was aware of the problem. The district court did not err in instructing the jury on admissions by a party-opponent.
VI. Inconsistent Verdict
Defendant asserts the jury's verdict was inconsistent because it awarded plaintiff $0 for future loss of function of mind and body, but $20,000 for future pain and suffering. The jury awarded $0 for past loss of function of mind and body, but $10,000 for past pain and suffering. Wal-Mart asks for a new trial.
An award of medical expenses or pain and suffering damages is not legally inconsistent with the jury's failure to award damages for loss of function of the body. Blume v. Auer, 576 N.W.2d 122, 126 (Iowa App. 1997). Loss of function of the body relates to functional impairment of a body part. Brant v. Bockholt, 532 N.W.2d 801, 805 (Iowa 1995). It does not include conditions of incapacity embraced within the definition of pain and suffering. Id. We determine defendant is not entitled to a new trial based on an inconsistent jury verdict.
VII. Subsequent Remedial Measures
Under Iowa Rule of Evidence 407, evidence of subsequent remedial measures is not admissible to prove negligence. Bingham v. Marshall & Huschart Mach. Co., Inc., 485 N.W.2d 78, 81 (Iowa 1992). Defendant claims the district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence it engaged in a subsequent remedial measure by placing a melting agent on the ice after the accident.
Rule 407 does not preclude evidence of subsequent remedial measure from being used to prove matters other than negligence. McIntosh v. Best Western Steeplegate Inn, 546 N.W.2d 595, 597 (Iowa 1996). Evidence of subsequent remedial measures may be admitted into evidence to explain the conditions existing at the time of an injury when photographs of the area were taken subsequent to the event. Id. (citing E.V.R. II Associates Ltd. v. Brundige, 813 S.W.2d 552, 556-57 (Tex. App. 1991)). We conclude the evidence was admissible to show the changed conditions between the time of the accident and the time the photographs were taken.
We affirm the judgment entered in district court. Costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|