Title: Builder's Transp., Inc. v. Claussen

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

BUILDER'S TRANSPORT, INC. and Robert Lawrence
Claussen v. Lincoln WILSON

95-899                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered February 12, 1996


1.   Damages -- claim award excessive -- factors on review. -- When
     an award of damages is alleged on appeal to be excessive, the
     appellate court reviews the proof and all reasonable
     inferences most favorably to the appellee and determines
     whether the verdict is so great as to shock the appellate
     court's conscience or demonstrate passion or prejudice on the
     part of the trier of fact; in determining whether the amount
     of damages is so great as to shock the conscience, the
     appellate court considers such elements as past and future
     medical expenses, permanent injury, loss of earning capacity,
     scars resulting in disfigurement, and pain, suffering, and
     mental anguish; the determination is made on a case-by-case
     basis; a jury has much discretion in awarding damages in
     personal injury cases.

2.   Damages -- future expenses do not require the same degree of
     certainty as past medical expenses -- future medical expenses
     properly considered. -- Future medical expenses do not require
     the same degree of certainty as past medical expenses; where
     the appellee presented evidence of his past medical expenses,
     including a medical expense summary, future medical expenses
     were an appropriate element of damages for consideration; it
     is not speculative or conjectural to calculate future medical
     expenses where there is a history of medical expenses that
     have accrued as of the date of trial, particularly where there
     is also a degree of medical certainty as to the need for
     future medication.

3.   Damages -- sufficient proof of injury and potential for future
     medical expenses -- damage award did not shock the conscience.
     -- Where appellee presented proof of permanency of his injury
     through his own testimony and that of his physicians, he
     presented ample proof of pain and suffering, and also
     presented ample proof of mental anguish as a result of the
     injuries he suffered in the collision, the proof supported the
     conclusion that, not only did appellee suffer a permanent
     injury which caused him pain, discomfort, and inability to use
     his left arm properly, but it also drastically changed his
     life; the verdict of $245,000 was not so great as to shock the
     conscience of the court or to demonstrate passion or prejudice
     on the part of the jury.


     Appeal from Clark Circuit Court; W.H. "Dub" Arnold, Judge;
affirmed.
     Arnold, Grobmyer & Haley, by: Jacob Sharp, Jr. and  David H.
Pennington, for appellant.
     Wright, Chaney, Berry & Daniel. P.A, by: William G. Wright,
for appellee. 

     Robert H. Dudley, Justice.





BUILDER'S TRANSPORT, INC. AND
ROBERT LAWRENCE CLAUSSEN,
                    APPELLANT,

V.

LINCOLN WILSON,
                    APPELLEE.



95-899


APPEAL FROM THE CLARK COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT,
NO. 94-75,
HON. W.H. "DUB" ARNOLD, JUDGE,




AFFIRMED.
     Lincoln Wilson was injured when his car was struck by a
tractor-trailer owned by Builders Transport, Inc., and driven by
Robert Claussen.  Wilson filed suit against Builders and Claussen,
and the jury returned a verdict of $245,000.  Judgment was entered
for the amount of the verdict.  Builders and Claussen appeal and
contend that the award is excessive.  We affirm the judgment.    
     When an award of damages is alleged on appeal to be excessive,
the appellate court reviews the proof and all reasonable inferences
most favorably to the appellee and determines whether the verdict
is so great as to shock the appellate court's conscience or
demonstrate passion or prejudice on the part of the trier of fact. 
Warhurst v. White, 310 Ark. 546,