Opinion ID: 2525113
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Loncar's Motion for a New Trial

Text: The superior court was within its discretion in denying Loncar's motion for a new trial. Loncar argues that the court should have granted her motion because the jury award was unsupported by the evidence. We rejected a similar argument in Richey v. Oen . [26] In Richey v. Oen , Richey was injured in a traffic accident. She received a directed verdict on the issue of negligence and presented extensive evidence of back problems, but the jury awarded her no damages. [27] We found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Richey a new trial. The evidence supporting the verdict was not so slight and unconvincing as to make the jury's verdict plainly unreasonable and unjust, we concluded. [28] Because the jury had heard a plethora of conflicting testimony, and because the plaintiff had seemingly sought to conceal her pre-accident history of back problems, an evidentiary basis existed for the jury to find no causation and thus no damages. [29] The jury in this case also had an evidentiary basis to doubt both the causation and the extent of Loncar's claimed injury. The jurors heard testimony suggesting that Loncar had experienced the same symptoms before the accident, testimony suggesting that she had misled her doctors about whether she lost consciousness at the time of the accident, and testimony that the doctors' diagnoses would have been different if they had not believed Loncar's claim to have lost consciousness. Loncar cites cases holding that, where evidence of pain and suffering is uncontradicted, [30] or where a jury awards medical expenses, [31] denial of damages for pain and suffering is inadequate and inconsistent. However, Loncar was not denied damages for pain and sufferingshe received a damages award of $2,500 for past pain and suffering. Therefore, these cases are not relevant to her appeal.