 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Tappan v. Higgins12/1/1989
The defense presented no medical testimony of its own, but instead attacked the plaintiff's case by attempting to discredit Tappan herself. Higgins maintains that there is substantial credible evidence to support the jury verdict. Higgins contends, now, as he did in the District Court, that the question of Tappan's pain and suffering rests on her credibility. Defendant argues that Tappan's pain was subjective, and that her credibility regarding the amount of bending and lifting required by the bakery job was put into question by testimony of her former employer. While there is conflicting evidence in regard to job requirements at the bakery, the overwhelming evidence in the record supports the plaintiff's position that she can no longer work at the bakery
Defendant also contends that Tappan saw no health care provider following the accident. According to Higgins, this allowed the jury to conclude that she was either not injured or her injury was slight Furthermore, Higgins claims that Tappan aggravated her symptoms by returning to work against her doctor's orders. Finally, the defendant argues that Tappan exaggerated her past and future wage loss. The jury, according to Higgins, chose to believe defendant's expert witness on wage loss, and this is reflected in the verdict
The defendant is correct in his assertion that the jury verdict is determined in large part by the credibility of the party and the witnesses. However, in this case, there are some glaring discrepancies in the amount of damages presented at trial and the verdict handed down by the jury aside from the credibility of any witness
The District Court was correct in holding that the verdict was not supported by the evidence; in effect the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict. Section 25-11-102(6), MCA The District Court did not abuse its discretion in granting a new trial. We affirm the District Court
CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE and JUSTICES HARRISON and HUNT concur
JUSTICE WEBER did not participate
JUSTICE GULBRANDSON concurred in the result
JUSTICE McDONOUGH concurred in the result
|