Opinion ID: 1831560
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Excessive Damages for Personal Injury.

Text: Appellants contend that the jury award of $18,000 for personal injuries to the plaintiff is excessive. This part of the award covers damages for personal injuries, related pain and suffering and loss of earnings from the trial into the future. The standard of this court's review is that where there is any credible evidence which under any reasonable view supports the jury finding, especially when the verdict has the approval of the trial court, it should not be disturbed. [12] We are handicapped on this appeal in that there is no analysis of the evidence by the trial court. Because the trial judge has the advantage of personal observation of the witnesses, particularly the plaintiff, his decisions on the excessiveness of a verdict have great weight on review. Because of the heavy reliance placed by this court on the trial court's view of the damages, this court has declared that when a verdict is found to be excessive by the trial court, the trial court should state its reasons for its determination. [13] Where the trial court determines that the jury verdict is not excessive, we have recommended that the trial court state its reasons for so ruling. [14] In the instant case the trial court did not file a detailed memorandum but stated that the award, although at the upper limits of damages was not out of reason. Because of the absence of an analysis by the trial court, this court on appeal must review the entire record as a matter of first impression and ascertain whether, in its judgment, the verdict is excessive. [15] As a result of the accident Bach was thrown forward, his face smashed into the windshield causing the glass to break. Bach had four severe lacerations across the face and was bleeding profusely. When Bach was brought to the hospital a physical examination disclosed that his skin was clammy and that his blood pressure was low. He had a large cut under the nose and across the cheek with multiple small bone fragments visible in the cuts. There was a long vertical laceration on the left side of his forehead and a laceration of the right upper eyelid and a vertical laceration on the right external ear. Bach was operated upon and remained hospitalized for four days. Dr. Ralph Bennett, a general practitioner from Ladysmith, performed the operation and testified that in addition to the lacerations and broken bones in Bach's face, X rays had disclosed that the septum of the nose was displaced out of the middle of the nose and off to one side. Dr. Bennett said that this displaced septum would have ramifications for Bach's health. For example, if Bach were to catch a cold he would also suffer a sinus infection because the displacement of the septum would interfere with the free drainage from the sinuses. Dr. Bennett testified that because there were fractures around the face it was probably more painful than the average fracture. Dr. Bennett also said that the injuries were permanent, that Bach would continue to have pain, that he had suffered a 15 percent permanent disability of the whole man, and that he would have pain in the future whenever his face was exposed to cold or damp weather. On cross-examination Dr. Bennett admitted that a deviated septum is not a rare affliction and that it can be corrected surgically by a minor operation. Dr. Bennett had not treated or seen Bach from the time he was released from the hospital (four days after the accident) until the date of the trial. The major residuals from the accident were several scars on Bach's face. Dr. James Kramer, a specialist in internal medicine from Wausau, was the only other medical witness called during the trial. Dr. Kramer had examined Bach at the request of the defendants several months before the trial. Dr. Kramer testified that the scars were permanent, that there was a numbness and a loss of sensation over the cheek bone due to the injury, that there was a weakness in the muscles on the right side of the mouth and that Bach did have a deviated nasal septum. Dr. Kramer also said that the deviated septum was not irreparable and that it was very likely that surgery could correct it. Dr. Kramer also stated that he did not feel that there was any relationship between the accident and some of Bach's maladies. Appellants contend that Dr. Bennett should not have been allowed to express an opinion as to Bach's permanent disability. They rely on Rivera v. Wollin, [16] wherein this court held that a doctor who had last examined the plaintiff eleven months before the trial could not give an opinion as to the future pain and suffering because his contacts with the plaintiff were too remote to be a foundation for the award. Rivera is distinguishable because it is grounded on the question of whether or not the rule of Diemel v. Weirich [17] was met. In Diemel the court quoted from 20 Am. Jur., Evidence, p. 649, sec. 778, as follows: `... where the injury is subjective in character and of such nature that a layman cannot with reasonable certainty know whether or not there will be future pain and suffering, the courts generally require the introduction of competent expert opinion testimony bearing upon the permanency of such injury or the likelihood that the injured person will endure future pain and suffering before allowing recovery therefor.' [18] The Diemel rule is only applicable when the injuries are subjective in character. In this case, Bach's injuries ( i.e., the deviated septum and the scars, etc.) are objective, hence Diemel and Rivera are not applicable. We conclude that that part of the jury award in the amount of $18,000, though high, is not out of reason and is within the range of reasonably debatable amounts. It is not excessive.