 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bedney v. Heidt5/20/1998
Appeal From The Eighth Judicial Circuit, Meade County, SD Hon. Scott C. Moses, Judge #20178 -- Affirmed in part, Reversed in part
Considered On Briefs Apr 27, 1998
[ ] Defendant in personal injury action appeals the grant of plaintiff's motion for new trial. Plaintiff cross-appeals the judgment entered on the jury verdict. We affirm the judgment and reverse the order granting the motion for new trial.
FACTS
[ ] On April 27, 1995, Scott Heidt drove his vehicle into the back end of the automobile in which Marie Bedney was seated. Bedney sued Heidt, claiming he was responsible for injuries to her neck and back. Heidt stipulated to liability but disputed the extent to which this collision caused her damages, claiming they resulted from a July 1, 1994 motorcycle accident in which Bedney was injured.
[ ] Bedney presented evidence and testimony in an attempt to prove she was healed from the motorcycle accident, that she was permanently injured in the automobile accident, that her current medical bills were $10,000, and future medical bills were $90,000 to $108,000. Additionally, Bedney testified to lost earnings of $800 to $1,000.
[ ] Heidt attempted to counter her claims through cross-examination of Bedney's witnesses, and through the testimony of Dr. Maruyama, who conducted an independent medical examination (IME) on Bedney. The IME was conducted approximately two weeks prior to trial and Dr. Maruyama's deposition was taken eight days prior to trial. On the first day of the two-day trial, Bedney requested the X-rays taken by Dr. Maruyama, who then sent them by overnight delivery to one of Bedney's chiropractors. Bedney did not offer or use these at trial.
[ ] After hearing all of the testimony, the jury returned a verdict of $800. Bedney made a motion for new trial, based on the following grounds: 1) that the X-rays taken by Dr. Maruyama constituted newly discovered evidence; 2) that the $800 verdict was inadequate and unsupported by the evidence; 3) that defense counsel made improper remarks during closing argument; and 4) that the trial court erred by giving jury instruction #6, a non-pattern jury instruction submitted by Heidt.
[ ] At the motion hearing, Heidt questioned whether the statutory time in which a new trial motion must be ruled upon elapsed. The parties presented arguments on this point at a later hearing on Heidt's motion for relief from the order granting the new trial. The trial court ruled that it had jurisdiction to issue the order and Heidt appeals. Bedney filed a notice of review and now attempts to argue the same four grounds raised in her motion for new trial.
[ ] 1. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO RULE ON THE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD.
[ ] A party seeking a new trial must bring a motion in accordance with SDCL 15-6-59(b):
The motion for a new trial stating the grounds thereof shall be served and filed not later than ten days after the notice of entry of the judgment.
The court shall make and file the order granting or denying such new trial within twenty days after the service and filing of such motion, unless for good cause shown, the court files an order within said twenty days extending the time for entering such order. If a motion for new trial has not been determined by the court and no order has been entered by the court extending the time for such ruling within twenty days from the date of service and filing of such motion, it shall be deemed denied.
Heidt argues the motion was "deemed denied" because the trial court neither ruled on the motion nor entered an or
Page 1 2 3 4 South Dakota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|