Opinion ID: 2000436
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether, if a New Trial is Granted, the Issues Should be Limited to Damages Relating to Fisher's Neck Injury.

Text: In the event of a retrial, Davis wants the jury to consider only the damages relating to Fisher's neck injury. In contrast, Fisher insists that the jury consider damages relating to all three of Fisher's injuriesneck, elbow, and shoulder. Davis apparently concedes liability is not in issue and that there should be no retrial on that issue. We agree there should be no retrial on liability. By its award for the precise medical expenses relating to Fisher's neck injury, the jury clearly found that Fisher did sustain a neck injury in the collision. But inherent in that award was also a clear rejection of Fisher's claim that her elbow and shoulder were also injured in the collision. In these circumstances, we think any retrial should be limited to damages relating to Fisher's neck injury. Fisher's reliance on Brant v. Bockholt, 532 N.W.2d 801 (Iowa 1995), is misplaced. In Brant, we ordered a retrial on all elements of damages, reasoning that a jury's determination of various elements of damages are apt to be influenced by the recovery allowed for other elements of damages. Brant, 532 N.W.2d at 805. In Brant, we held the district court erred in not instructing on an additional element of damages pertaining to one injury. Id. at 804-05. That led us to conclude that the jury should consider anew all the elements of damages pertaining to that injury. In contrast, here, Fisher claimed three separate injuries. The jury clearly rejected Fisher's claim relating to two of those three injuries. The elements of damages pertaining to the rejected claims are irrelevant to the elements of damages pertaining to the injury the jury did believe Fisher sustained in the collision.