 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cervantes v. Rijlaarsdam11/18/1997
ter in her report and then acknowledged it in her deposition, and that Buehler reviewed Goldman's report and deposition do not automatically render the hearsay evidence of the 1991 incidents admissible in the absence of a proper foundation and a showing of relevance.
In addition, defendants did not establish, through hypothetical questions, offer of proof, or otherwise, how (if at all) the information in the letter, assuming its accuracy, would have influenced Goldman's Conclusions about plaintiff's employability and earning capacity. Similarly, defendants failed to show how that information, if true, would have altered or affected Buehler's loss of earnings projections. Absent such a showing, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion or committed reversible error in its evidentiary rulings. See Foulk v. Kotz, 138 Ariz. 159, 673 P.2d 799 (App. 1983).
NEW TRIAL
Finally, we find no merit in defendants' contention that the trial court erred in not ordering a new trial or remittitur. We will not overturn a trial court's denial of a motion for a new trial absent a clear abuse of discretion. Delbridge v. Salt River Project Agr. Imp. & Power Dist., 182 Ariz. 46, 893 P.2d 46 (App. 1994).
In addition to the foregoing arguments, which we have rejected, defendants' motion contended the verdict was excessive. The jury awarded plaintiff Eugenio Cervantes $182,000 in damages and zero dollars to Maria Cervantes for her loss of consortium claim. We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict and, if reasonable persons could agree with the jury's award, sustain the verdict "unless it so exorbitant as to indicate passion, prejudice, mistake or complete disregard of the evidence and instructions." Welch v. McClure, 123 Ariz. 161, 164, 598 P.2d 980, 983 (1979). Considering plaintiff's medical and damages evidence, we cannot say "the amount of the jury verdict is so unreasonable and outrageous as to shock the conscience." Mammo v. State, 138 Ariz. 528, 532, 675 P.2d 1347, 1351 (App. 1983). Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' post-trial motion.
CONCLUSION
The trial court's judgment and its order denying defendants' motion for a new trial and/or remittitur are affirmed.
JOHN PELANDER, Presiding Judge
CONCURRING:
WILLIAM E. DRUKE, Chief Judge
J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|