Case Title: Gullo v. Walther

Citation: 

Docket Number: 254, 2000

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2001-06-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MARC A. GULLO,
)
)  No. 254, 2000
Plaintiff Below,
)
Appellant,
)  Court Below:  Superior Court
)  of the State of Delaware in
v.
)  and for New Castle County
)
KIRSTEN WALTHER,
)  C.A. No. 97C-05-101-JEB
)
Defendant Below
)
Appellees.
)
Submitted:  April 17, 2001
Decided:  June 28, 2001
Before WALSH, HOLLAND and STEELE, Justices.
O R D E R
This 28th day of June, 2001, it appears to the Court that:
1.
The appellant, Marc A. Gullo, appeals the May 2, 2000 Superior
Court Order that denied his motion for a new trial following a second trial in which
a jury awarded him $0 in damages for injuries he suffered during a car accident
that occurred on June 10, 1995.  The facts in this case are relatively simple and
generally not in dispute.  On June 10, 1995, Kirsten M. Walther’s car collided with
an auto driven by Gullo.  Both cars were undamaged except for scratches on
Gullo’s rear bumper.  Neither driver appeared injured at the time of the accident.
Gullo apparently sought medical treatment for injuries he claimed he sustained in
2
the accident approximately six weeks later.  He complained then of pain in his
neck and shoulder.
2.
Gullo filed suit in the Superior Court.  The first trial began on
November 9, 1998.  The Superior Court directed a verdict on liability for Gullo
and submitted the case to the jury solely on the issue of damages.  The jury
concluded that Gullo had not been injured in the car accident and it awarded Gullo
$0 in damages.  The Superior Court granted Gullo’s motion for a new trial.
3.
On January 24, 2000, the second trial in this case began.  The second
jury heard basically the same evidence from the same witnesses.  It too awarded
Gullo $0 in damages.  This time, the Superior Court denied Gullo’s motion for a
new trial.  The Superior Court granted Walther’s request for costs totaling $4,200,
which included $200 for arbitration and $4,000 for expert testimony at both trials.
4.
This Court’s standard of review for a denial of a motion for a new trial
is abuse of discretion.1  In general, great deference is given to jury verdicts.2  “As
long as there is a sufficient evidentiary basis for the amount of the award, the
jury’s verdict should not be disturbed by a grant of … a new trial as to damages.”3
“[A] court’s assessment of whether a jury’s award of damages is within a range
                                          
1 Young v. Frase, Del. Supr., 702 A.2d 1234, 1236 (1997).
2 Del. Const., art. IV, § 11(1)(a).
3 Frase, at 1237.
3
supported by the evidence must necessarily be based on the evidence presented to
the jury.”4
5.
In this case, the Superior Court found that the verdict was not against
the weight of the evidence nor did it shock the conscience of the court.  Gullo
complained of no injuries at the accident scene.  After the accident, Gullo was
treated by three neurologists and two neurosurgeons for subjective complaints of
neck pain and numbness in his hand.  His treating physicians reported Gullo’s
examinations for objective syptomology to be normal.
6.
In this case, the jury could reasonably conclude that Gullo suffered no
injury resulting from the accident and, therefore, should not recover damages.  It is
well settled that a jury may choose to believe or disbelieve claims of injury based
solely upon a plaintiff’s subjective complaints.5  This case falls within the range of
a jury’s reasonable judgment in the absence of any testimony of objective
symptomology.  The award of costs to Walther is also consistent with our statutes
and court rules.6  Our review of the record does not support the conclusion that the
Superior Court abused its discretion.
                                          
4 Id. at 1237-38.
5 DeBernard v. Reed, Del. Supr., 277 A.2d 684 (1971).
6 See 10 Del. C. § 8906; Super. Ct. Civ. R. 54(d).  Walther also contends that the award of costs
is justified under Super. Ct. Civ. R. 68 because she offered Gullo $15,000 for settlement.
4
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior
Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Myron T. Steele_____________
Justice