Opinion ID: 1824501
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: elaine dziuk.

Text: Immediately after the collision Mrs. Dziuk was engrossed with her children, particularly Terri Ann. Mrs. Dziuk went with her husband and their younger daughter, Vicki, to their home, following which she went to the hospital where she was examined by Dr. Peterson. She testified that a friend helped her walk and that she was placed in a wheelchair at the hospital, but conceded that there was nothing wrong with her legs to prevent her from walking at that time. She was released without confinement. On the next day she went with her husband to the office of Dr. Peterson where she was examined. Mrs. Dziuk described her condition in these words: Q. Where were your aches? A. Well, in the lower part of my back. My back ached and I had a bruise on my leg and across my chest and arms and my elbow, and I felt real rough. During the few days following the accident, she testified, she couldn't do anything at all. She was not confined to her bed and was able to go to the hospital to see her daughter. For 4 days following the accident her mother came to the home and helped her because I couldn't do anything. Thereafter she received some part-time assistance on occasion. She went to see a chiropractor, Dr. Nelson, a couple of weeks after the accident, and he gave me several treatments on my back. Later in the testimony she indicated chiropractic treatments were given in February. She testified that in March before the accident (it is not clear whether this was in 1959 or 1960): I was carrying Vicki and I missed a step and fell and after that I had back trouble, but I had some treatments from Dr. Nelson after which she felt real good. As of the time of the trial she said, I feel fine, but it [the pain in the lower back and legs] comes and goes. Mrs. Dziuk had been working at a toy store and it was stipulated that she lost $125.40 in wages during the 2-week period subsequent to December 18, 1960. In addition, this plaintiff claimed that during the months of January and February she would, except for the accident, have sold on a commission basis for the Hope Chest Company, where her earnings would approximate $182 a month. Her testimony on this aspect of the case was, at best, vague. Dr. Peterson testified with respect to his examination of Mrs. Dziuk that she complained of bruises and contusions in the anterior left rib area, the left flank area and left kidney area. She also complained of backache and neck stiffness. X-rays were negative. She was further examined by Dr. Peterson on December 19, December 21, and December 27, 1960, and on January 3 and January 10, 1961. On February 13, 1961, the doctor noted that she had been laid up with a sore lower back and was then having pain radiating down the left leg. Her reflexes appeared normal at that time. On March 11, 1961, she was complaining of low backache. During the months of March, April, May, June, August, and September 1961 she was observed by Dr. Peterson for conditions unrelated to the accident but he noted during that time that the condition of her back was up and down. He said, At times her back felt reasonably well and then again it would bother her a good deal. She was last seen by the doctor on February 22, 1962. At that time she was complaining of pain in her low back and leg ache. Her reflexes were good and her back flexion was quite good, according to Dr. Peterson. The following question was asked and answer given: Q.    Taking into consideration your examination and findings are you able to give an opinion as to reasonable certainty as to the causal connection between this accident we have been talking about and her back condition? A. Yes. I think her injuries are related to the accident. The jury by answers to special interrogatories found that Elaine Dziuk had sustained no general damages and fixed her wage loss in the amount of $125.40 in conformity with a stipulation between the parties. Since the amount of the wage loss was fixed by agreement the jury was not called upon to make a determination of the relationship between this wage loss and the injuries sustained by her on December 18. Other than the complaint of low back pain and the radiating leg pain, presumably related to the low back abnormality, there was no such description of pain and suffering as would permit an award of more than nominal damages by the jury on this account. If the low back pain and collateral complaints were caused by the accident, an allowance of general damages in some substantial amount should have been made. Although not free from doubt on this point, we conclude that the award of $250 as general damages for Mrs. Dziuk should be affirmed because the evidence of causal relationship between her complaints and the December 18 collision does not compel an affirmative conclusion as to such relationship. While we do have the testimony of Dr. Peterson that her injuries were related to the accident, his answer was based entirely upon his examination and findings, and the history of the back injury occurring the spring prior to the accident was not directed to his attention. Further, Dr. Nelson, the chiropractor who treated Mrs. Dziuk both before and after the collision with which we are now concerned, was not called as a witness by the plaintiff. Under these circumstances we feel that the jury was free to conclude, as it apparently did, that plaintiff had failed to sustain the burden of proof as to causal relationship. The allowance of $250 as general damages to Elaine Dziuk by the trial court, in our opinion, relieves any unfairness which might otherwise result from the original disallowance of general damages.