Case Title: Avery v. Ward

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-12-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
Richard AVERY and Carroll Truck Lines v.
Willie WARD, Jr.

95-880                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered December 16, 1996


1.   Trial -- directed verdict -- when proper -- substantial
     evidence defined. -- A directed verdict for a defendant is
     proper only when there is no substantial evidence from which
     the jurors as reasonable individuals could find for the
     plaintiff; substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient
     force and character that it will compel a conclusion one way
     or the other; evidence introduced by the plaintiff, together
     with all reasonable inferences therefrom, is examined in the
     light most favorable to the plaintiff when the defendant makes
     a directed-verdict motion.

2.   Trial -- directed verdict -- trial court appropriately denied
     directed-verdict motion. -- The supreme court will not sustain
     a verdict that is based on speculation and conjecture; here,
     however, where there was sufficient proof that appellant was
     not keeping a proper lookout and was consequently negligent,
     that was not the case; the trial court appropriately denied
     the directed-verdict motion and allowed the matter to go to
     the jury for determination.

3.   Damages -- medical expenses -- party seeking has burden of
     proving reasonableness and necessity. -- A party seeking
     medical damages has the burden of proving the reasonableness
     and necessity for that party's medical expenses.

4.   Torts -- eggshell plaintiff -- appellee qualified. -- The
     supreme court concluded that the fact that appellee was a
     diabetic, suffered from hypertension, had a history of back
     problems, and had a prior ulcer on his ankle that recurred
     from time to time did not rid appellants of liability; it
     simply meant that appellee qualified as an "eggshell
     plaintiff," that is, one who was susceptible to enhanced
     injury by virtue of an existing condition.

5.   Negligence -- causation -- fact question for jury to decide --
     no reversible error. -- Matters of causation are questions of
     fact for the jury to decide; the same holds true for matters
     of credibility; the supreme court concluded that an adequate
     foundation was laid for the treatment of appellee's back,
     neck, and leg conditions and that ultimately the question of
     causation was one for the jury; the court held that there was
     no reversible error committed on this point.

6.   Evidence -- insufficient proof that hernia operation was
     normal consequence of original impairment. -- A negligent
     actor is only responsible for additional bodily harm resulting
     from the normal efforts of those providing medical treatment
     as reasonably required for the original bodily injury; the
     supreme court concluded that there was insufficient proof that
     appellee's hernia operation was in any wise a normal
     consequence of the original impairment; a proper foundation
     was not laid for the consideration of those expenses.

7.   Evidence -- hospital bill including unrelated expenses was
     erroneously admitted. -- Where there was no medical testimony
     as to why appellee was admitted to the hospital in the first
     place and no medical evidence as to how much of his stay was
     attributed to the injuries from his accident and how much was
     for a hernia and other unrelated tests and treatment, the
     supreme court concluded that, to the extent that the hospital
     bill may have included these unrelated expenses, it was
     erroneously admitted. 

8.   Torts -- personal-injury case -- plaintiff's burden to
     establish causal nexus between his injuries and defendant's
     negligence. -- A plaintiff may prevail in a personal-injury
     case upon proof that he sustained damages, that the defendant
     was negligent, and that the negligence was the cause of his
     damages; the law imposes on the plaintiff the burden of
     establishing a causal nexus between his injuries and the
     defendant's negligence; reversible error occurs when a jury is
     permitted to award damages on the basis of injuries that are
     not caused by the defendant.

9.   New trial -- when new trial cannot be avoided by entry of
     remittitur. -- Ordinarily, a general verdict is viewed as a
     complete entity that cannot be divided, requiring a new trial
     upon reversible error; however, a new trial can sometimes be
     avoided by the entry of a remittitur if the error relates to
     a separable item of damages; such a remittitur is fixed by the
     highest estimate of the element of damage affected by the
     error; but if the appellate court is at a complete loss to say
     what damages the jury would have allowed had the improper
     evidence not been considered, and if it cannot with confidence
     arrive at any maximum figure that the jury would surely have
     allowed absent the error, a new trial cannot be avoided by the
     entry of remittitur; if it is necessary to speculate in order
     to fix a remittitur, the appellate court reverses and remands
     the case for a new trial.

10.  New trial -- case reversed and remanded for new trial. --
     Where appellee failed to meet his burden to show that the
     expenses he incurred for the various treatments he received
     during his sixteen-day hospital stay were reasonably and
     causally related to his accident, the supreme court concluded
     that the trial court erred in admitting his medical bills into
     evidence, noting that it was unnecessary to address
     appellants' remaining arguments relating to the jury's
     assessment of damages and the trial court's refusal to allow
     a peremptory challenge, as those issues were unlikely to arise
     again on retrial; the case was reversed and remanded for a new
     trial.


     Appeal from Phillips Circuit Court; Olly Neal, Judge; reversed
and remanded.
     Huckabay, Munson, Rowlett & Tilley, P.A., by: Julia L.
Busfield, for appellants.
     J.L. Wilson & Associates, for appellee.
     
     Bradley D. Jesson, Chief Justice. 
     The appellants, Richard Avery and Carroll Truck Lines, appeal
from a judgment against them in the amount of $100,000.  They
advance four bases for reversal: (1) the trial court erred in
denying their motion for directed verdict because there was no
substantial evidence to support the verdict; (2) the trial court
erred in admitting testimony and medical bills of appellee Willie
Ward, Jr., without a proper foundation; (3) the trial court erred
in denying Avery's motion for a new trial based on error in the
assessment of damages; and (4) the trial court erred in refusing to
allow Avery to use a peremptory challenge to strike a prospective
juror.  We agree with appellants' second contention and reverse and
remand for a new trial.
     On April 26, 1986, Richard Avery was an employee of Carroll
Truck Lines and was driving a tractor-trailer truck.  Ward
testified that he had slowed his pickup truck to allow a car ahead
of him to turn when he was hit from behind by Avery's truck.  As a
result of the collision, a screwdriver fell off either Ward's
dashboard or the truck seat and punctured him on his ankle, causing
infection and an abscess to develop.  He also claimed back and neck
injuries.    
     Ward's wife, Betty Ward, contacted Dr. Matthew Wood, his
primary physician, and scheduled an appointment for some eight to
ten days after the incident.  Ward was hospitalized on May 13,
1986, and remained there for sixteen days.  At the hospital, Ward
fell while trying to leave his bed to go to the bathroom.  He
experienced a hernia, which led to an operation.  His total medical
bill for the hospital stay was $7,951.63.  Ward, who had previously
suffered from diabetes, hypertension, and back problems, incurred
additional medical expenses while in the hospital.  During his
sixteen-day stay, he was tested for hemorrhoids and a rash and
received ophthalmology and urology examinations.
     Ward sued Avery and Carroll Truck for negligence and sought to
collect on all medical expenses.  Following trial, the jury
returned a general verdict in Ward's favor in the amount of
$100,000.  Subsequently, the trial court refused to grant a motion
for a new trial based in part on the improper admission into
evidence of certain medical expenses.

                 I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
     Avery and Carroll Truck first contend that there was no
substantial evidence to support the verdict.  We disagree.  The
appellants correctly state our standard of review for denial of a
directed verdict.  A directed verdict for a defendant is proper
only when there is no substantial evidence from which the jurors as
reasonable individuals could find for the plaintiff.  Martin v.
Rieger, 289 Ark. 292,