 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Doe v. White9/23/1994
ndment. Cty. Bd. of Edn. v. Howard (1957), 167 Ohio St. 93, 4 O.O.2d 83, 146 N.E.2d 604. Thus, had the legislature intended to broaden the common-law definition of malpractice, it could clearly have done so. See Thompson v. Community Mental Health Ctrs. (Oct. 4, 1993), Warren App. No. CA92-08-072, unreported, 1993 WL 390512.
Therefore, we find that R.C. 2305.11 is inapplicable to this case. Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled.
As his second assignment of error, White raises the following:
"The trial court erred in awarding `windfall' damages."
White claims that the award of $25,000 in compensatory damages and $75,000 in punitive damages were excessive and not supported by the evidence.
As to the second assignment of error, we must note that the brief is incomplete, as it is missing pages concerning this assignment of error. White's counsel was contacted and apprised of this error, and asked to file a supplemental brief. However, no supplemental brief was ever filed. Thus, this court is only able to consider this assignment of error to the limited extent in which it was presented.
It is improper for an appellate court to disturb an award of damages unless it is not supported by any competent, credible evidence. Meacham vsMiller (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 35, 606 N.E.2d 996; Baum v. Augenstein (1983), 10 Ohio App.3d 106, 10 OBR 129, 460 N.E.2d 701.
The Ohio Supreme Court recently addressed the issue of compensatory damages:
"Compensatory damages are defined as those which measure the actual loss, and are allowed as amends therefor. For example, compensatory damages may, among other allowable elements, encompass direct pecuniary loss, such as hospital and other medical expenses immediately resulting from the injury , or loss of time or money from the injury, * * * and mental pain and suffering." Fantozzi v. Sandusky Cement Prod. Co. (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 601, 612, 597 N.E.2d 474, 482.
White specifically argues that the trial court erred in awarding Doe damages for mental pain and suffering. However, it has been recognized that the assessment of damages for mental pain and suffering is difficult to evaluate and is a matter "solely for the determination of the trier of fact because there is no standard by which such pain and suffering may be measured." Id. at 612, 597 N.E.2d at 482.
In this case, there is competent, credible evidence to support the trial court's award of compensatory damages. Doe testified that she missed work and incurred medical and psychological expenses because of the incident. Doe's expert witness, Dr. Cooper, testified that he had examined Doe and found that the incident with White caused her to suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome. Dr. Cooper testified that Doe would require further psychological treatment for at least one year. Based on this evidence, we find that the trial court's award of compensatory damages was not excessive and was supported by the evidence.
White also argues that the trial court's award of $75,000 in punitive damages was improper. Punitive damages are awarded to punish an offending party and to deter others from engaging in similar conduct. Preston v. Multy (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 334, 512 N.E.2d 1174. Pursuant to R.C. 2315.21, punitive damages may be awarded in a tort action where actual damages have been proven, and the actions of the defendant demonstrate malice, fraud, oppression, or insult.
To prove malice, it is sufficient to show that a person acted with "a conscious disregard for the rights and safety of other persons that has a great probability of causing substantial harm." Preston, supra
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|