Court Opinion

ID: 9693443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:41:31.245237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:46.739765
License: Public Domain

Bronson, J.
(dissenting). The question before this Court is whether the jury’s award of damages is so clearly or grossly inadequate and so contrary to the great weight of the evidence that it shocks the judicial conscience. Moore v Spangler, 401 Mich 360, 373; 258 NW2d 34 (1977).
*202I cannot agree with the majority’s broad statement that there was conflicting evidence on the issue of damages. Of the total out-of-pocket expenses of $22,914.82, only $125 could be considered contested.
Plaintiffs claim of damages for pain and suffering was not refuted by testimony that he played softball and racquetball and worked 50-60 hours a week some time after his accident. Plaintiff did not claim future wage loss, and his claim of pain and suffering damages did not rest on his reduced opportunities for recreational activities. Plaintiff suffered serious injuries to the head and face, two areas which usually cause factfinders to be sensitive to an injured person’s claim for pain and suffering. See generally 11 ALR3d 370. Plaintiff’s respiratory injuries are of the type which entail significant pain and long-term discomfort.
The jury’s award of damages for pain and suffering is disproportionately low when compared with jury awards for injuries of comparable seriousness. The ratio of the total award to plaintiff’s uncontested medical expenses and work loss is incredibly low. Although neither method is extremely useful in assessing the adequacy of damages, analysis using both methods intensifies the feeling of shock one has when this verdict is considered in light of the evidence.
I would allow additur or grant a new trial on damages.