 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bedney v. Heidt5/20/1998
also that it was prejudicial error to the effect that under the evidence, the jury might and probably would have returned a different verdict." Kuper v. Lincoln-Union Elec. Co., 1996 SD 145, Section 17, 557 NW2d 748, 755 (citations omitted).
[ ] Instruction #6 stated:
Damages must reasonable. If you should find that any of the parties in this case are entitled to a verdict, you must award that party only such damages as will reasonably compensate such party for any injury and damage you find, from a preponderance of the evidence in the case, has been sustained as a proximate result of the accident.
You are not permitted to award speculative damages. So, you are not to include in any verdict compensation for any prospective loss which, although possible, is not reasonably certain to occur in the future.
Bedney argues that the instruction was "unnecessarily one-sided and prejudicial to the Appellee. It inferred she was asking for 'speculative' damages and damages which would not 'reasonably compensate' her." She cites no authority and she concedes that the "giving of this instruction would not by itself justify the granting of a new trial."
[ ] In view of Bedney's admission that this instruction, standing alone, does not warrant reversal, and her failure to cite authority, there is no showing that this instruction was prejudicial or an inaccurate statement of the law. Bedney has not demonstrated that the trial court erred in giving the instruction.
[ ] The order granting Bedney's motion for new trial is reversed and the judgment entered on the verdict is affirmed.
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.
|
|