Opinion
No. 3-129 / 02-0648.
Filed April 30, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (North) County, DAVID B. HENDRICKSON, Judge.
Shanna Brown appeals the district court decision granting Jamie Perry's motion for new trial in this tort suit arising from an automobile accident. AFFIRMED.
Timothy McKay of Harrison, McKay, Moreland Webber, P.C., Ottumwa, for appellant.
Michael Schilling of Cahill Schilling Law Office, Burlington, for appellee.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and MAHAN and HECHT, JJ.
Shanna Brown appeals the district court decision granting Jamie Perry's motion for new trial in this tort suit arising from an automobile accident. Brown claims the district court abused its discretion by finding the damages were inadequate. We affirm.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
On February 4, 1999, Brown rear-ended a vehicle driven by Perry, who was then a minor. Perry has been treated by a general practitioner, Dr. Timothy Dykstra, and a specialist, Dr. Richard Neiman. Dr. Neiman diagnosed Perry with "a severe bulge or disc herniation." She also did not have full mobility of her head and neck. Both Dr. Dykstra and Dr. Neiman gave the opinion Perry's injury was caused the motor vehicle accident. Dr. Neiman testified the injury was permanent, and that she would continue to experience pain and discomfort in the future.
Perry filed suit against Brown. Brown admitted negligence, and the trial was only on the issue of damages. Brown did not present any witnesses to dispute Perry's medical evidence. The jury awarded Perry past medical expenses of $10,867.15, future medical expenses of $4132.85, past pain and suffering of $250, future pain and suffering of $250, past loss of full body of $250, and future loss of full body of $250, making a total damage award of $16,000.
Because Perry was a minor at the time of the accident, she filed suit through her mother, Teresa Perry.
Perry filed a motion for a new trial claiming the jury awarded her inadequate damages for past and future pain and suffering and past and future loss of body. The district court granted the motion for new trial, noting that on these items "the damages awarded were extremely low." The court found:
The evidence as to damages (liability was admitted) was presented by plaintiff as the defense did not call any witnesses but simply relied on cross-examination of plaintiff's witnesses. It was undisputed that plaintiff suffered a neck injury and an injury to her lumbar spine described as a disk bulge. The evidence is undisputed that plaintiff is taking pain medication. The Court also observed that even defense counsel, in final argument, did not suggest that the jury limit the damages to the extent awarded by the jury.
Brown appeals.
II. Standard of Review
In ruling upon motions for new trial the district court has a broad but not unlimited discretion in determining whether the verdict effectuates substantial justice between the parties. Iowa R.App.P. 6.14(6)( c). We find an abuse of discretion when the district court exercises its discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. Channon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 629 N.W.2d 835, 859 (Iowa 2001). We are slower to interfere with the grant of a new trial than with its denial. Iowa R.App.P. 6.14(6)( d).
III. Merits
Whether damages are so inadequate to warrant a new trial is for the district court to decide. Fisher v. Davis, 601 N.W.2d 54, 57 (Iowa 1999). The adequacy of damages depends upon the particular facts of the case. Id. The test is whether the verdict fairly and reasonably compensates the party for the injury sustained. Id.
It is illogical for a jury to award a plaintiff medical expenses to treat a neck injury and pain, and then allow nothing for pain and suffering. Id. at 59; See also Cowan v. Flannery, 461 N.W.2d 155, 160 (Iowa 1990) ("It is illogical to award past and future medical expense incurred to relieve headache, neck and back pain and then allow nothing for such physical and mental pain and suffering."). "There is no basis for finding that anything other than the pain and suffering resulting from the accident necessitated the medical services for which allowance was made." Fisher, 601 N.W.2d at 58 (quoting Shewry v. Heuer, 255 Iowa 147, 152, 121 N.W.2d 529, 532 (1963)).
Here, the jury first returned a verdict with no amount awarded for pain and suffering. The district court asked the jury to return to the jury room and award some amount for these items. The jury then awarded $250 each for past and future pain and suffering and past and future loss of body. Although the jury awarded something for pain and suffering, as the district court noted, the award was extremely low.
We determine the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting a new trial in this case. We give weight to the fact the district court, aided by seeing and hearing the witnesses, observing the jury, and having before it all incidents of the trial, deemed a new trial appropriate. Kalvik ex rel. Kalvik v. Seidl, 595 N.W.2d 136, 140 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999).
We affirm the decision of the district court.