 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Whaley v. Perkins7/21/2005
erkins and the Beshires only.
Somewhat later, the trial court gave the following instructions, pertaining to the measure of damages for misrepresentation, which correspond to 8 Tennessee Pattern Jury Instructions-Civil 8.49 (T.P.I. 8.49):
If you find that the plaintiffs are entitled to a verdict against certain defendants you must then award damages in an amount that will reasonably compensate the plaintiffs for all of the loss suffered that was legally caused by the misrepresentation upon which you based your finding of liability.
You will award the plaintiffs the benefit of the bargain. The benefit of the bargain is the difference between the value of what the plaintiff would have received if the misrepresentation had been true and the actual value of what the plaintiff received.
Actual value means market value. Market value is the highest selling price that real or personal property would bring on the open market. In making your finding of market value, you will assume that the seller has a reasonable time to sell and that the seller is willing to sell but not forced to do so.
You will also assume that the buyer is ready, able and willing to buy but is not forced to do so and that the buyer had a reasonable time and full opportunity to investigate the property and to determine it's condition[,] suitability for use and all the things about the property that would naturally and reasonably affect its market value. That charge relates to the Beshires.
Upon reviewing the jury instructions as a whole, it appears that the jury instructions are confusing and the inclusion of instructions pertaining to the personal injury claim for emotional distress was error which affected the jury's verdict.
Although the TPI 8:49 instruction is the correct measure of damages for misrepresentation claims, the inclusion of TPI instruction 14:45 appears to create difficult confusion but in and of itself is possibly harmless error. However, the inclusion of the instruction for emotional distress is error, and, more probably than not, affected the verdict of the jury.
5. Did the trial court commit reversible error when it permitted the jury to allow passion associated with the plaintiffs' claims of emotional distress to affect its verdict?
Appellants contend that the trial court committed error in permitting plaintiffs' claims of emotional distress to affect the jury's verdict. We conclude that the consideration by the jury of damages for emotional distress constitutes reversible error. The jury was instructed on emotional distress and was allowed to award damages to the Whaleys for the emotional distress they suffered. However, in the jury verdict form provided by the trial court to the jury, there is no distinction between damages awarded as compensation for damage to property, as compensation for misrepresentation, or as compensation for emotional distress. Given that the jury was erroneously permitted to consider the Whaleys' claim for emotional distress, a component of the award of damages against the Appellants may well have been for emotional distress, but the jury verdict form leaves us with no way to know whether this is the case, and if so, what proportion of the damages were awarded for emotional distress. Therefore, judgment on the jury verdict must be vacated.
As to the alleged inconsistency and excessiveness of the jury verdict, we pretermit these issues in light of our conclusion that the judgment must be vacated.
VI. CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, we vacate the judgment on the jury verdict. We remand the case to the trial court for the direction of a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Tennessee Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|