 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Graham v. Walker10/25/2005
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 10/25/2005
BEFORE LEE, P.J., MYERS AND BARNES, JJ.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
. On April 21, 2000, Evelyn Graham was driving along Highway 11 North in Picayune, Mississippi. After stopping at a red light at the intersection of Highway 11 North and Bruce Street, Graham proceeded through the intersection, stopped suddenly, and was subsequently rear-ended by another car driven by James Walker. Graham had duct tape covering her right brake light, and Walker testified that Graham's left brake light failed to illuminate. There was minor damage to both cars.
. Upon the advice of the paramedics, Graham went to Crosby Memorial Hospital but did not undergo any tests. Graham was released but returned the next day complaining of a sore neck and back. Over the next two years, Graham, complaining of neck and back pain, sought treatment on different occasions with an orthopaedist, a physical therapist and a chiropractor. Graham claims that she has experienced significant pain since the accident, resulting in her inability to perform her job and engage in physical activities.
. Graham brought a negligence action against Walker and a trial was held on August 13, 2003, in the Circuit Court of Pearl River County. The jury returned a verdict finding both parties equally negligent. The jury also declined to award Graham damages. Furthermore, prior to trial, at a hearing on November 27, 2002, the trial judge found that Graham intentionally violated discovery and assessed sanctions against her in the amount of $2,629. Graham now appeals to this Court asserting the following issues: (1) the trial court erred in failing to grant her motion for an additur or for a new trial as the jury's failure to award damages was the result of bias, passion and prejudice; (2) the trial court erred in failing to grant her motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict; and (3) the trial court erred in finding that she committed willful discovery violations and in assessing sanctions against her. Finding no merit to the issues, we affirm.
DISCUSSION
I. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN FAILING TO GRANT GRAHAM'S MOTION FOR AN ADDITUR?
. In her first issue on appeal, Graham argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant her motion for an additur or for a new trial as the jury's failure to award her damages was the result of bias, passion and prejudice. When this Court reviews whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for additur we are limited to an abuse of discretion standard of review. Maddox v. Muirhead, 738 So. 2d 742 ( ) (Miss. 1999). The focus at the appellate level is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for additur, not upon the jury's action in awarding damages. McNair Transport, Inc. v. Crosby, 375 So. 2d 985, 986 (Miss. 1979). The burden of proving injury and other damages falls to the party seeking the additur. Id. We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the additur is sought and must give him the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be reasonably drawn therefrom. Id. "Awards set by jury are not merely advisory and generally will not be 'set aside unless so unreasonable as to strike mankind at first blush as being beyond all measure, unreasonable in amount and outrageous.'" Maddox, 738 So. 2d at 743 ( ) (citing Rodgers v. Pascagoula Pub. Sch. Dist., 611 So. 2d 942, 945 (Miss. 1992)). "Additurs represent a judicial incursion into the traditional habitat of the jury, and therefore should never be employed without great caution." Id.
. Graham argues t
Page 1 2 3 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|