 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul v. Imperial Palace12/19/1995
Per Curiam: Appellant Edolia Paul slipped and fell in the buffet line of respondent Imperial Palace, Inc. (Imperial). Paul sued Imperial.
[111 Nev. 1544, Page 1546]
After a jury returned a verdict in favor of Paul, the district court granted Imperial's motion for a new trial. Paul appeals. We conclude that the district court erred in granting a new trial and therefore reverse and remand for reinstatement of the jury's verdict.
FACTS
In June 1989, appellant Edolia Paul and her friend, Mamie McCloud, were in Las Vegas with a church group from Lafayette, Louisiana. On the morning of June 22, the two were in the buffet serving line at Imperial. As Paul reached for a cereal bowl, she slipped and fell on her right shoulder. McCloud heard Paul's foot slip and saw the end of the fall. McCloud looked at the rug where Paul fell, and it was slick from some kind of oil. Several hotel employees working in that area came running to the scene of the accident. Some of the employees remarked that several other people had slipped on the rug recently, thought not that day. Evidence showed that the carpet runners along the food serving area were changed each day before the buffet opened for breakfast and that hostesses monitored the buffet area to make sure that any spilled food was cleaned up. A doctor in Louisiana later performed surgery on Paul's arm. The doctor diagnosed Paul's injury as a torn rotator cuff and adhesive capsulitis, or frozen shoulder. After the operation, Paul had approximately a thirty percent permanent disability in her upper right arm. She decided not to have a second operation because the doctor gave only a twenty percent chance that it would restore full use of her arm. At trial, Paul demonstrated the limits in her arm motion. Since the accident, she could not sleep on her right side because of the pain and could no longer scrub at home or use a mop or broom. Instruction 17a given to the jury allowed recovery for past and future medical expenses and for past and future physical and mental pain, suffering, anguish, and disability. Imperial objected to the instruction. It argued that Paul had not proved the amount or necessity for any future medical expenses or that pain and suffering would continue in the future. Paul's counsel argued that they had shown that she was in pain which would last for the rest of her life. The district court asked, "you are not going to argue any specific figures?" Paul's counsel said that he would not, except that Paul would "have to buy a bottle of aspirin and Tylenol from time to time." The court stated: "If you limit your final argument to that concept, I'll let you argue that." Counsel also agreed that he would not argue that future surgery was contemplated. The court stated: "All right, with that understanding, then.
[111 Nev. 1544, Page 1547]
ing, then." Imperial did not object to the court's ruling, and the parties agreed to the verdict forms. In closing argument, Paul's counsel suggested that
it's reasonable to believe that she's going to have some very minor, minimum expense in the future years with aspirin and Tylenol. And other than that, we face the question, what can she be awarded for pain and suffering and disability.
He told the jury that "all the trouble and the inconvenience" was not a factor in determining damages, but that "pain and suffering and disability and past medical expenses" were. He said, "I don't think $200,000 is too much for the injuries that she has suffered, and her pain and suffering, and her disability." The jury returned the verdict form for Paul. It read in part:
We assess the Plaintiff's special past medical expense damag
Page 1 2 3 4 Nevada Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|