 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lautner v. Lin8/30/2005
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
DECISION
{ } On March 10, 2000, plaintiff-appellant, Shawn C. Lautner, was involved in a collision when defendant-appellee, Chen Chin Lin, drove her vehicle into the rear of the vehicle appellant was driving. Appellant originally filed an action against appellee, State Farm Mutual Insurance Company and Grange Insurance Company for personal injuries arising out of the collision. After several dismissals, this case proceeded to a jury trial against appellee in August 2004. Prior to the trial, the parties stipulated that appellee negligently operated her motor vehicle causing the automobile collision, but the issues of proximate cause and damages were tried before the jury. After the trial, the jury returned a general verdict in favor of appellant and answered interrogatories, finding appellee's negligence directly and proximately caused injury or damage to appellant and awarding appellant $625 in total compensation , of which $612 was for past economic loss to appellant, $13 for past non-economic loss and nothing for future damages.
{ } Appellant filed a notice of appeal and raises the following assignments of error:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I
The jury's verdict is inadequate as a matter of law, against the manifest weight of the evidence and the trial court erred by denying Appellant's motion for a mistrial based on the grossly inadequate jury award.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. II
The trial court committed prejudicial error by improperly instructing the jury during deliberations and instructing the jury that it could award nominal damages in a negligence personal injury case.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. III
The trial court committed prejudicial error by overruling Appellant's objections to Appellee's questions to and responses from Dr. Season expressed in the form of a medical opinion without the requisite foundation establishing that the medical opinion was based on a reasonable degree of medical probability rather than mere possibilities, and improperly refusing to instruct the jury regarding the standard for competence of medical opinions pursuant to Stinson v. England, 69 Ohio St.3d 451 (1994).
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. IV
The trial court committed prejudicial error by improperly refusing to instruct the jury as requested pursuant to O.J.I. 11.10, , Pre-existing condition, and O.J.I. 23.10, Aggravation; acceleration.
{ } At the trial, appellant was the first witness to testify. He was employed by the Truro Township Fire Department as a firefighter paramedic, worked at MedFlight and taught at the State Fire Academy. On the date of the accident, he was leaving work at approximately 7 p.m., and traveling south on Interstate 270. An automobile accident had occurred and the traffic was stopping. He saw appellee's vehicle in his rearview mirror and she collided with the rear of the car he was driving. He estimated her speed was at least 55 m.p.h. Immediately after the accident, he felt pain in his lower back, shoulder and neck areas. That night, the pain became progressively worse. He took Advil and went to see Dr. Grant Evans, a chiropractor, for his complaints of lower back pain, neck and shoulder pain, and pain radiating down his left leg.
{ } The pain interfered with his work activities and his free-time activities. Before the accident, he played softball approximately three times per week, played golf at least once per week, went boating, water skiing and lifted weights. After the accident, he testified he could not water ski, lift weights and decreased the amount of time he spent playing golf and softball. Dr. Evans treated
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|