Opinion ID: 1852453
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to grant plaintiffs' motion for additur or, in the alternative, for a new trial on the issue of damages due to the verdict being contrary to the weight of the evidence?

Text: ¶ 11. This Court reviews the denial of a motion for additur or a new trial for abuse of discretion, and has stated: It is primarily the province of the jury to determine the amount of damages to be awarded and the award will normally not be set aside unless so unreasonable in amount as to strike mankind at first blush as being beyond all measure, unreasonable in amount and outrageous. The party seeking the additur must prove his injuries, damages, and loss of income. In deciding if the burden has been met, we must look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the party in whose favor the jury decided, granting that party any favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn therefrom. Harvey v. Wall, 649 So.2d 184, 187 (Miss. 1995) (citations omitted). This Court has granted an additur of $10,000 or, in the alternative, a new trial where the jury had ignored the medical bills offered into evidence and made no allowance for pain and suffering in calculating the plaintiff's damages. Maddox v. Muirhead, 738 So.2d 742, 745 (Miss.1999)(holding, however, that the jury was free to accept or reject Maddox's uncorroborated and undocumented testimony concerning lost wages and overtime). ¶ 12. In the case sub judice, the damages sought by Thompson and Reese included lost wages, past and future medical bills and past and future pain and suffering. In support of these claims, they offered evidence in the form of medical bills, testimony from their employer indicating how much they would have been paid if they had not missed several months of work while recuperating, and testimony from Dr. Narinder Gupta indicating that both men suffered from a number of chronic bone and muscle injuries which Dr. Gupta attributed to the collision. ¶ 13. Ultimately, the jury awarded Thompson $29,800.00 in damages, which included $3,383.33 in medical bills, $13,144.00 in lost wages, and $13,272.67 in pain and suffering. [4] The jury awarded Reese $47,200.00, which included $7,139.23 in medical bills, with the rest apparently meant to cover both lost wages and pain and suffering. However, Summers and Mallory sharply disagreed with Reese's assertion at trial that he was entitled to $51,350.40 in lost wages, a figure apparently based on the assumption that, had he not been injured, he would have worked seven days a week, twelve hours a day for the nine-month period following the accident. Summers and Mallory also offered evidence in the form of tax returns that Reese made $33,272 in 1994 and $17,000 for the part of 1995 in which he was able to work. As such, they reason, Reese's jury award was meant to include his medical expenses, his lost wages, and pain and suffering. ¶ 14. Viewing these factors in favor of Mallory and Summers and granting them all favorable inferences, this Court concludes that the award of damages was not so unreasonable in amount as to strike mankind at first blush as being beyond all measure, unreasonable in amount and outrageous. Harvey v. Wall, 649 So.2d at 187. Admittedly, the damages were well in excess of the medical bills offered into evidence, as well as lost wages and pain and suffering (although obviously assessed more conservatively than Thompson and Reese would have liked). As such, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for additur or a new trial. This assignment of error is without merit.