 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pearson v. Wasell12/16/1998
bar. In Vescuso, v. Laurla (1989), 63 Ohio App.3d 336, 578 N.E.2d 862, both parties' medical experts testified that the plaintiff had suffered an injury as a direct result of the automobile accident in question. That is not the case in this matter.
This court will not invade the province of the jury in determining the weight to be afforded opinion evidence rendered by an expert. It is the duty of a jury to determine whether the facts upon which an expert opinion is based have been proven by the greater weight of the evidence. Camden v. Miller (1986), 34 Ohio App.3d 86, 517 N.E.2d 253.
Although a directed verdict was granted in favor of appellants on the issue of liability, the issues of proximate cause and damages properly remained to be determined by the jury. Based upon the testimony offered by the policsofficer who investigated the accident, appellant's admission that she did not seek medical attention until eight days after the accident, and the divergent opinions presented by expert testimony, there was competent, credible evidence from which the jury could conclude that appellant suffered no injury as a result of this accident warranting an award of damages. A judgment supported by some competent, credible evidence will not be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. Gerijo, Inc. v. Fairfield (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 223, 638 N.E.2d 533.
Appellants did not establish any viable grounds for a new trial, and, based upon our discussion under the foregoing assignments of error, the trial court did not commit prejudicial error as a matter of law during the within trial. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellants' motion for a new trial.
Appellants' fourth, fifth, and sixth assignments of error are found to be without merit.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
GENE DONOFRIO, P.J., and WAITE, J., concur.
|