Opinion ID: 2443620
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: jury instruction on damages.

Text: Butler contends that the court erred by instructing the jury as follows: If you decide for Robert Hughes and/or Patsy Hughes on the question of liability... you must then fix the amount of money which will ... compensate [them]... for any of the following seven elements of damages sustained which you find were proximately caused by the fault of Butler Manufacturing Company, . . . . Sixth, any scars, disfigurement, and visible results of his injuries. Butler argues there was no showing of any scars, disfigurement or visible results of the injury in the evidence which would allow the jury to be so instructed. We disagree with Butler's contention and find that there is sufficient evidence of disfigurement to justify the instruction. Dr. Harold Chakales, the orthopedic surgeon who treated Hughes, testified that Hughes suffered bilateral wrist fractures, which means the wrist is actually cracked here and knocked upwards and deformed. Dr. Chakales explained that Hughes had evidence of healed fractures of his left and right wrist with some collapse of the fractures. And this caused his wrists to be radial deviated and to have some prominence over the distal portion of the wrist. The doctor also testified that after surgery, cosmetically the wrists looked better because the bump that sticks out of there following this type of collapse was gone. The doctor's explanation that Hughes's wrists were deformed is sufficient proof of disfigurement and visible results of the injury. Although the wrists were evidently improved cosmetically by the surgery, the doctor did not testify that their appearance was now normal. Butler argues that in Welter v. Curry, 260 Ark. 287, 539 S.W.2d 264 (1976), this court found scars, were not compensable where the testimony did not indicate the scars were disfiguring, discomforting, humiliating, disabling, or normally visible. Butler argues this is the standard by which to judge Hughes's injuries. In Welter , however, the plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that disfiguring scars had been suffered that would cause that plaintiff humiliation and embarrassment. There was no similar allegation in this complaint and accordingly Hughes did not have to prove his injuries were humiliating. The instruction did require the jury to find disfigurement and visible results of the injury. No error was committed.