 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
GERMANN v. BLATCHFORD5/25/1990
The opinion of the court was delivered by
This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Shirley Germann, from an order of the district court which denied her motion for a new trial based upon the inadequacy of the jury verdict. In an unpublished opinion, Germann v. Blatchford, No. 62,680, filed November 9, 1989, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial on the issue of damages only. We granted petitions for review filed by both defendants, Bonnie Blatchford and Ernest E. Germann. We affirm the decision reached by the Court of Appeals.
On May 10, 1985, Shirley Germann was a passenger in the front seat of a station wagon driven by her husband, Ernest E. Germann, when their vehicle was involved in a head-on collision with a pickup truck driven by Bonnie Blatchford. The Germanns' daughter, Christy, was a passenger in the back seat. Plaintiff sued her husband and Bonnie Blatchford, claiming each was negligent
in operating their respective vehicles. Plaintiff also sued Coffey County, alleging the county was negligent in maintaining and signing the road. The claims against the county were settled before trial and all parties stipulated to the county's dismissal from the case with prejudice. At trial the district court ruled as a matter of law that there was no fault on the part of the plaintiff which contributed to the accident and the issue of fault was limited to that of the two individual defendants.
The jury, utilizing a verdict form prepared in compliance with K.S.A. 1989 Supp. 60-249a, found each defendant 50% at fault and awarded damages as follows:
"3. Without considering the percentage of fault found in question 2, what total amount of damages do you find was sustained by Shirley Germann for each of the following items:
"A. Pain and suffering, disability or disfigurement and any accompanying mental anguish from the accident in question to date: $ -0-
"10 of the 12 of us agreed on the above answer.
"B. Pain and suffering, disability or disfigurement and any accompanying mental anguish reasonably certain to be sustained in the future: $ -0-
"12 of the 12 of us agreed on the above answer.
"C. Reasonable expenses of necessary medical care, hospitalization and treatment received from the accident in question to date: $5,500.00
"11 of the 12 of us agreed on the above answer.
"D. Reasonable expenses of necessary medical care, hospitalization and treatment reasonably certain to be sustained in the future: $ -0-
"12 of the 12 of us agreed on the above answer.
"E. Loss of time or income from the accident in question to date: $ -0-
"12 of the 12 of us agreed on the above answer.
"F. Loss of time or income reasonably certain to lose in the future: $ -0-
"11 of the 12 of us agreed on the above answer.
"G. Loss and impairment of her ability to perform services as a wife to her husband to date: $1,000.00
"10 of the 12 of us agreed on the above answer.
"H. Loss and impairment of her ability to perform services as a wife to her husband reasonably certain to be sustained in the future: $ -0-
"12 of the 12 of us agreed on the above answer.
TOTAL $6,500.00"
Plaintiff has appealed the judgment entered upon the jury's verdict, asserting that she is entitled to a new trial because of the i
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kansas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|