 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Villandry v. Gregerson12/19/1991
cident and has incurred more than $2,500 in reasonably necessary medical bills and the jury fills out Verdict Form B which establishes the elements of negligence, causation, and injuries in plaintiff's favor, we determine that a jury verdict of zero is inconsistent with the other instructions and the evidence and, thus, cannot stand.
We, therefore, conclude that under the facts here, an award of some amount was necessary to compensate the plaintiff for her non-PIP damages, i.e., inconvenience and loss of time required to visit physicians, obtain rehabilitation and other treatment, as well as related emotional stress and pain.
If a party proves that they have incurred a certain kind of damages, e.g., pain and suffering, the jury must compensate that party for such damages. See Rine v. Isham, 152 Colo. 411, 382 P.2d 535 (1963); Murrow v. Whiteley, 125 Colo. 392, 244 P.2d 657 (1952). This doctrine applies to both economic and non-economic losses incurred by a plaintiff. Murrow v. Whiteley, supra ; Lynch v. Kuhlmann Investment Co., 93 Colo. 274, 25 P.2d 744 (1933).
Hence, the zero verdict is not logically sustainable under the evidence and the other jury findings and applicable instructions.
Defendant did not seriously contest that plaintiff had incurred pain, inconvenience, and emotional stress from her injuries. Rather, defendant claimed that these problems were all solely the result of a prior automobile accident. However, by its use of Verdict Form B, it is apparent that the jury ascribed some of these injuries to this accident, and thus, the jury verdict assessing zero damages was improper.
This was a rear-end collision and defendant has not cross-appealed the jury's determination of his negligence. Accordingly, retrial is necessary only as to damages and causation. See Staples v. Langley, 148 Colo. 498, 366 P.2d 861 (1961); Murrow v. Whiteley, supra.
The judgment is affirmed insofar as it found defendant liable to plaintiff. It is reversed as to the award of damages, and the cause is remanded for new trial on the issues of damages and causation.
JUDGE REED and JUDGE RULAND concur.
Disposition
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND CAUSE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS
|