 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Miller v. Greenlee10/12/2005
Plaintiffs appeal from the district court's denial of their motion for a new trial on damages. AFFIRMED.
Heard by Huitink, P.J., Hecht, J., and Nelson, S.J.
The plaintiffs in this personal injury case appeal the district court's denial of their motion for new trial. They argue the verdict was inconsistent. After reviewing the trial court record made available to us and the arguments of the parties, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
On April 26, 2001, Amanda Miller and her two children were in a vehicle that was rear-ended by a delivery truck owned by Pepsi Cola General Bottlers and driven by its employee, Bradley Greenlee. On April 21, 2003, the plaintiffs filed this action. The defendants admitted fault, but denied causation and damages. At trial, plaintiffs introduced the following medical bills as exhibits at trial: $8852.42 for Amanda Miller, $1162.00 for one child, and $1102.00 for the other child. The plaintiffs also introduced a summary of Amanda Miller's claim that she lost $2075 in wages. Although no trial transcript was prepared, in their brief the defendants state Ms. Miller testified that she received $5000 from her insurance carrier, that the insurance carrier had a subrogation interest in any recovery she received, and that she would have to repay that amount.
The jury awarded the following damages to Amanda Miller: $3000 in past medical expenses, $5000 in past pain and suffering, $1050 in past loss of function of the body, and $950 for past lost wages, for a total of $10,000. The jury awarded each of her children $52 for past medical expenses and $150 for past pain and suffering. The judgment totaled $10,404. The jury also found, based on special interrogatories submitted pursuant to Iowa Code section 668.14 (2003), that the Millers had received money from their insurance carrier, that the Millers needed to refund that money to the insurance carrier, and that the amount to be refunded was $5000.
The Millers filed a motion for new trial, alleging inconsistency of the verdict. After a hearing, the court denied the motion on November 8, 2004. The Millers appeal.
Issues Presented for Review
We set forth, verbatim, the following issues as stated on page one of the Millers' brief:
I. ARE THE APPELLANTS ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES ONLY WHEN THE MEDICAL BILLS INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE TOTALED $11,116.42, BUT THE JURY AWARDED PLAINTIFFS ONLY $3,104, WHILE FINDING THE AMOUNT TO BE REFUNDED TO ANY INSURANCE COMPANY WAS $5,000?
II. ARE THE APPELLANTS ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES ONLY WHEN THE TRIAL COURT RULED THAT THE PARTIES[,] INCLUDING THE PLAINTIFFS, AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY ARE NOT BOUND BY THE JURY'S DECISION CONCERNING THE AMOUNT TO BE REFUNDED AND FREE TO NEGOTIATE DIFFERENT AMOUNTS?
Standard of Review
Our scope of review in this law action is for the correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4.
The standard of review applicable to motions for new trial depends on the nature of the ground asserted and ruled on by the district court. Hansen v. Central Iowa Hosp. Corp., 686 N.W.2d 476, 480 (Iowa 2004). If the ground alleged is a question of law, such as sufficiency of the evidence, review is for the correction of errors at law. Estate of Hagedorn v. Peterson, 690 N.W.2d 84, 87 (Iowa 2004). If the motion seeks relief based on a matter committed to the trial court's discretion, review is for abuse of that discretion. Id. at 87-88; see also Hansen, 686 N.W.2d at 480.
The standard of review applicable to a district court's interpretation and construction of statutes is for the correction of errors at
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|