 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Payne v. Cornhusker Motor Lines8/9/2005
ered the prospective juror's duty to disclose previous lawsuits against them." Id. at 139-140. In Melgio, the court refused to grant a new trial when appellant's attorney had specifically limited the questioning to personal injury by stating "I'm going to limit this just to claims for personal injuries, not for property damage to a car or property damage to a house." Melgio v. Hebel, 759 S.W.2d 615, 616 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988).
In a case factually similar to the case at hand, the court determined that questions were not specific enough to require a new trial. Keltner v. K-Mart Corp., 42 S.W.3d 716, at 726 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001).. In Keltner, the question was: "Has anyone claimed you did something wrong that you are responsible for, an injury or something else, and filed a claim or suit against you." Id. A juror did not disclose collection suits in bankruptcy . Id. at 718-19. The defendant claimed that the "or something else" in the question broadened the question to include all prior law suits. Id. However, the court did not accept that interpretation. The court determined that the question was not clear enough to require disclosure of all prior lawsuits. Id. at 727.
Likewise, under the circumstances of this case, we cannot find that a clear question requiring disclosure of all prior suits was asked. The very first general question asked regarding lawsuits was immediately followed up with a question about suing or being sued for an injury . Then another follow up question stated "It doesn't have to be a law suit, just involved in an accident that had some kind of claim." Another question regarding accidents was then proffered. The words "accident" and "injury" were mentioned multiple times during the questioning. The defendant asked three times whether anyone was involved in a claim where they "sought money" and whether they had ever made claims for "personal injuries or monetary damages."
Accordingly, it would be reasonable for the jurors to have assumed that the questions were solely regarding injury claims. The non-disclosed claims cited by Defendant do not involve injury claims. Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant questioned the prospective jurors about family law matters or about debtor/creditor claims, taxes or property damage not sustained in a collision with a tractor-trailer. Defendant argues that the general questions should have triggered responses regarding these matters, but we disagree. The general questions asked were followed by specific referrals to injury suits. No one on the panel brought up these kinds of suits. If Defendant was concerned about domestic relations actions, tax suits and so forth, it should have asked about these during voir dire. We will not find that jurors failed to disclose answers to questions when the questions were not asked.
Remittitur
In Defendant's last point, it claims that the trial court erred in denying Defendant's motions for JNOV or Motion for New Trial and Remittitur because the verdict is grossly excessive under the evidence presented.
The standard of review for a trial court's denial of a motion for remittitur is for abuse of discretion. LaRoseThe assessment of damages is primarily a function of the jury. Armon v. Washington University, 154Griggs, 60 S.W.3d 365, 37037, 40 (Mo. App. E.W.D. 2004). Remittitur will be considered appropriate where the verdict of the jury is excessive because it exceeds fair and reasonable compensation for plaintiff's damages. 2001). The reviewing court will interfere with a trial court's discretion in approving a verdict awarding damages or setting it aside as excessive only when the verdict is so grossly excessive that it shocks the conscience of the court and convinces
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|