Opinion ID: 1355792
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Corrine Buoy's Claim.

Text: The Buoys contend that the second jury's refusal to award Corrine Buoy any damages for loss of consortium has no reasonable evidentiary basis. They therefore argue the superior court abused its discretion in denying Corrine Buoy's motion for a new trial. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to ERA, we hold that the evidence supporting the verdict on Corrine Buoy's claim was not so lacking as to make the verdict plainly unjust. There was evidence that Glen Buoy's physical injuries were not particularly restricting. Within six weeks of the crash he was at home and getting around on crutches. Two or three months later he could drive a car, and within six months of the accident he began walking with a cane. The Buoys often took vacation trips or trips to visit family after the accident. Moreover, the jury could have concluded that the injury to Glen Buoy's leg did not impair his relationship with his wife because Buoy already was suffering from a host of physical ailments at the time of the accident. With regard to Glen Buoy's mental condition, there was evidence that his depression adversely affected his relationship with his wife. An expert witness called by the Buoys testified that the Buoys' sex life became practically non-existent after the accident and that Mrs. Buoy had more of a boarder than a husband at this point. Corrine Buoy testified that her husband would lash out at me and that it wasn't the marriage as I remember what it was before the accident. However, Corrine Buoy admitted she had not sought any marriage counseling or done any reading to attempt to strengthen her marriage. Additionally, the cause of Buoy's depression was disputed. ERA introduced evidence that a number of factors other than the injury Buoy suffered in the helicopter accident could have precipitated or worsened his mental condition. The jury thus could have concluded that problems between the Buoys resulting from Glen Buoy's depression were not attributable to the injury Glen Buoy suffered in the crash. [7] We therefore conclude that the superior court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant a new trial on Corrine Buoy's loss of consortium claim.