Opinion ID: 1824501
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: vicki lee dziuk.

Text: Vicki Lee Dziuk was 6 years old at the time of the trial. She had been sitting with her sister, Terri Ann, in the back seat before the collision and was observed standing in the back seat immediately afterwards. She was taken home immediately after the accident and so far as the record shows received no medical attention. Her mother testified that at the time of the accident she got a bump on her head and that since the accident she has been deathly afraid to ride in a car. In our opinion this evidence is so vague that a finding of more than nominal damages would not be warranted and this court will not reverse the decision of the lower court where nominal damages only are involved. In any event, error as to this case is not assigned. See, Minn. Digest, Appeal and Error, Key No. 1171(6). 3. The medical opinions expressed in these actions as to the possibility of seizures as applied to Terri Ann; the causal relationship between the accident and the traumatic neurosis as applied to Mr. Dziuk; and the connection between low back complaints and the collision as applied to Mrs. Dziuk were not of such a nature as to compel acceptance by the jury. [1] 4. Plaintiffs contend that the answers to the special interrogatories returned by the jury were perverse because: (a) Elaine Dziuk and Thadeous Dziuk were awarded medical expenses without allowance for pain and suffering. (b) The evidence compels a finding of wage loss with respect to Mr. Dziuk and the jury concluded that he had none. (c) The allowance of $125.40 as a wage loss to Mrs. Dziuk is inconsistent with a finding of no general damages in her case. (d) The $600 allowed for medical expenses cannot be explained rationally. There is authority for the proposition that a verdict awarding medical expense but nothing for pain and suffering is inadequate and invalid. [2] This court has granted a new trial where there was a failure to award damages for severe bumps, bruises, and contusions. [3] If the answers to the special interrogatories were being considered without benefit of the additional amounts allowed by the trial court in the cases of Mr. and Mrs. Dziuk, we might well accept plaintiffs' position. In our decisions, however, the propriety of the trial court's order denying a new trial on the issue of damages has been appraised in light of the additional sums added by virtue of the conditional order of the court. [4] We have examined the record in the case to see whether the answers of the jury could have been influenced by factors interfering with plaintiffs' rights to a fair trial. We find nothing indicating a denial or infringement of these rights. The instructions given by the trial court were accepted by the parties without significant exception. Although the evidence was such as to sustain substantial awards for the plaintiffs other than Vicki, the jury, having had opportunity to observe the injured claimants firsthand, apparently concluded that the loss attributable to the collision was not of a serious character. A stipulated wage loss does not, we feel, carry a necessary implication of general damages because the stipulation does not involve an agreement that the earnings were prevented by pain and suffering. While we cannot determine the exact basis for the allowance of medical expenses in the amount of $600, it was adequate to cover so much of the expense incurred as was reasonably required to cure and relieve the injuries sustained if we assume, as the jury probably found: (a) That the hospitalization of Thadeous Dziuk from June 8 to August 9, 1961, and the treatment he received for dermatitis and traumatic neurosis were not accident connected; (b) That the expense incurred for treatment of Mrs. Dziuk's complaints was not necessitated by conditions resulting from the collision; and (c) That some, at least, of Dr. Noran's bill was attributable to preparation for trial rather than treatment of a compensable injury. Since the amount allowed was more than adequate to reimburse plaintiff Thadeous Dziuk for the medical and hospital expenses reasonably required in the treatment of conditions clearly connected with the accident, reversal for this reason is not indicated. 5. Our principal concern in reviewing this appeal arises from the fact that the order of the trial court directed a new trial of all of the four consolidated actions unless the amounts allowed to two of the plaintiffs were increased. If, in the opinion of the court, the damages allowed to Terri Ann were inadequate, she was entitled to a new trial and this right could not be defeated by addition to the award made to Mr. and Mrs. Dziuk on account of their claim. On the other hand, if the trial court, exercising its discretion, concluded that the allowance to Terri Ann made by the jury was adequate and that she was not entitled to a new trial on the issue of damages, the motion in her case should have been denied. In the absence of specific finding on this point, we have examined the proceedings and the order carefully and have concluded that the trial court must have determined that the $200 allowed was adequate under the circumstances. The finding of the jury on this point is incorporated in the order which adds $250 for Elaine Dziuk and $500 for Thadeous Dziuk as general damages. Implicitly, the fact that the trial judge did not add to the Terri Ann award implies acceptance of it as being reasonable. So considered, the person offended by the circumstance that a new trial might have resulted in the Terri Ann case if additur had not been made was defendant. Since additur was forthcoming and defendant makes no complaint, the error in this regard was without prejudice. Affirmed.