IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2016-CA-00745-COA JOE REEL APPELLANT

v. SANFORD WARREN APPELLEE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/30/2015 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. W ILLIAM E. CHAPMAN III COURT FROM W HICH APPEALED: RANKIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JOHN HUNTER STEVENS ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: JEREMY TRISTAN HUTTO NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: APPELLEE AW ARDED $2,480.12 IN DAMAGES; APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR JUDGMENT NOTW ITHSTANDING THE VERDICT OR ADDITUR DENIED DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 05/23/2017 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED: BEFORE GRIFFIS, P.J., CARLTON AND GREENLEE, JJ. GREENLEE, J., FOR THE COURT: ¶1. Joe Reel sued Sanf ord W arren f

or injuries sustained in a m otor-vehicle c ollision when
W arren r e a r - e n d e d Reel. W arren adm itted liability , and the case went to trial on dam ages. The jury awarded Reel $2,480.12. Reel m oved f or a new trial or, in the alternative, additur

or a judgm ent notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), w hich the trial court d enied. Reel appeals the denial as error. Finding none, we af f irm

. BACKGROUND ¶2. On August 21, 2009, W arren caused a m otor-vehicle collision when he rear-ended avehicle operated by Reel’s b rother, in which Reel was a passenger, at the intersection of

Highway s 475 and 8 0 in Pearl, Mississippi. W arren adm itted neglig e nce, and the case proceeded to trial on the i ssue of dam ages. Reel s u bm itted evidence of m edi c al expenses totaling $10,914.12, and claim ed neck and b ack pain a s a r esult of the a ccident. Reel also asserted he sustained an injury to his cervical spine that necessitated m e dical treatm ent. ¶3. At trial, W arren subm itted photographs of Reel’s vehicle, an a ccident report f rom the Pearl Police Departm ent that m a kes n o m ention of injuri e s s u s tained at the scene of the accident, and adm i ssions f rom Reel that he proceed e d f r o m the accident scene to another location to g ive an estim ate f or a prospective painting jo b a n d t h a t h e never w ent to the

em ergency

room . W arren testif

ied that he was traveling a pproxim ately f

ive m iles per hour when im pact occurred, and that his vehicle only suf f ered a cracked headlight. ¶4. On direct exam ination, Reel and his wif e both denied that Reel com plained of

neck pain prior to the a ccident. However, during cross-exam ination, it was dem onstrated that Reel

com plained of neck pain dating back to 2006 and had undergone m a g netic r e s o n a nce im a ging because of s a id pain, and preaccident m edical records dem onstrated that Reel suf f e red f rom cervical-degenerative-disc disease. It was also shown that Reel had a phy sical in Novem b er 2 010, and his phy sician’s n otes s t ated that Reel was “doing extrem ely well, not having any m ajor problem s.” Further, Reel adm itted during direct exam ination that he f ell
at work in Decem

ber 2011, y et d enied any f alls at work o r hom e in his previous deposition.
It was also dem onstrated t h a t R e e l s a w his p hy sician in February 2 012, that Reel told his phy sician about the f

a ll, and that the phy sician told Reel that the f all probably exacerbated

2his neck pain.

¶5. W arren’s m edical exp e r t t e s t i f ied that R eel’s p reaccident com p laints of pain were consistent with c ervical-degenerative-disc disease, that there was no evidence of any acute injury on Reel’s postaccident diagnostic tests, and that based on com p arisons of Reel’s preand postaccident t esting, the accident did not change the condition of Reel’s neck. The jury f ound f or Reel in the am ount of $2,480.12. Reel m oved f or a new trial or, alternatively , f or additur or a JNOV. The circuit court denied Reel’s m o tion. Reel now appeals. DISCUSSION ¶6. On appeal, R eel asserts he wa s e n t i t l e d t o a new trial or additur 1 because the jury awarded dam a ges only

f or certain m edical expenses. 2 ¶7. Reel takes issue with the jury ’s award b e c a u s e i t o n l y c o v e r e d c ertain m edical
expenses and not other dam ages such as pain and suf f e ring, other accident-related m edical
expenses, and f

uture m edical expenses. The am ount of dam ages awarded is a jury question.
Downs v
. Ackerman , 115 So. 3d 7 85, 790 (¶16) (Miss. 2 013). “Because a jury award is not

m erely advisory , it generally will n ot be set aside unless so unreasonable as to strike m ankind

1 C o n d itio n s o f ad d itu r are set o u t in M ississip p i C o d e A n n o tated sectio n 1 1 -1 -5 5 (R ev . 2 0 1 4 ).

2 T h o u g h R eel a lso asserts th e trial co u rt erred in d en y in g h is m o tio n f o r a JN O V , h e p ro v id es n o ev id e n tiary su p p o rt o r caselaw f o r h is a r g u m e n t ; th eref

o re, h is arg u m en t is p ro ced u rally b arred f

o r lack o f relev an t au th o r ity

. A r g u m en t s ad v an ced o n ap p eal m u st “co n tain th e co n ten tio n s o f ap p ellan t w ith resp ect to th e issu es p resen t ed , an d th e reaso n s f o r th o se c o n t e n tio n s, w ith citatio n s to au th o rities, s t atu t e s , an d p arts o f th e reco rd relied o n .” M .R .A .P

. 2 8 (a)(7 ) . “F a ilu re to co m p ly w ith M ississip p i Ru le o f A p p ellate P ro ced u re 2 8 (a)(7 ) ren d ers an arg u m en t p ro ced u rally b arred .” M a rtin v. S ta te , 4 3 S o . 3 d 5 3 3 , 5 3 5 (¶1 0 ) (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 1 0 ). 3at f

irst blush a s being b ey ond all m easure, u n r e a s o n a ble in am o unt[ , ] and outrageous.” Id

. “Additurs represent a judicial incursion into the traditional habitat of the jury , and theref ore should never be em

ploy ed w ithout great caution.” Id

. It is the jury that determ i nes a witness’s credibility at trial, and the weight and worth o f h i s t e s t i m ony . Burge v. S piers , 856 So. 2d 577, 580 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2003) (citing Odom v. Roberts , 606 S o . 2 d 114, 118 (Miss. 1992)). The party

seeking additur has the burden of proof

. Id

. at 579 (¶6); Downs , 115 So. 3d at 790 (¶16). ¶8. The standard o f review f or the denial o f a new trial is abuse of discretion. Cleveland Nursing & Rehab. LLC v. Estate o f Gully , 206 So. 3d 516, 521 (¶15) (Miss. 2016). W e also review denial of

additur f or abuse of

discretion. D owns , 115 So. 3d at 790 (¶16). ¶9. Reel argues that “[ A] jury verdict awarding dam ages f or me d i c a l e xpenses alone is against the overwhelm i ng weight o f the evidence.” Scott Prather Trucking Inc. v. Clay ex rel. Sanders , 821 So. 2d 819, 8 22 (¶12) (Miss. 2002) (quoting Rodgers v. Pascagoula Pub. Sch.
Dist. , 6 11 So. 2d 942, 945 (Miss. 1992)); see also Pham v
. We l t e r , 5 4 2 So. 2d 884 (Miss. 1989); Matkins v. Lee , 491 So. 2d 866 (Miss. 1986); City of Jackson v. Ainsworth , 462 So. 2d 325 (Miss. 1984). However, each case involving additur m ust be d ecided on a case-by

case b a s i s . B u r

ge , 856 So. 2d at 579 (¶5) (citing Green v. G rant , 641 So. 2d 1203, 1208 (Miss. 1994)). A g a i n , i t i s the jury that determ ines a w itness’s credibility at trial, and the weight and worth of

his or her testim ony . Id . at 580 (¶9) (citing Odom , 606 So. 2d at 118). ¶10. Here, the j ury was presented with Reel’s conf licting sworn testim ony concerning his prior m edical c o n d ition and previous injuries, and evidence that called into question the

4credibility of the e xpe r t

- me d ical testim ony presented o n his behalf

. Through the im p eachm ent of Reel’s evidence as to causation of his dam a ges, there was am ple evidentiary support f or the verdict returned b y the jury

. W e will not disturb the jury ’ s f inding, as the trial
court did not abuse i ts discretion in ruling that the verdict was not against the overwhelm ing weight of the evidence. W e a lso f i nd the trial court did not abuse its d iscretion in deny ing an additur, as the j ury ’ s verdict i n n o w ay evinced bias or prejudice. Thus, we f ind Reel’s
argum ents without m erit. CONCLUSION ¶11. W e af

f irm the circuit c ourt’s o rder deny i ng Reel’s request f or a new trial, or, i n the alternative, additur or a JNOV. ¶12. T H E J U D GMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RANKIN COU N T Y I S AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF T HIS A PPEAL A RE ASSESSED TO T H E APPELLANT.
L E E , C .J., IRVING A ND GRIFFIS, P . J J . , B A R N E S , I S H E E , C A RL T O N , F A I R , WILSON AND WESTBROOKS, JJ., CONCUR.

5