Court Opinion

ID: 9729364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:33:02.982655+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:57.271988
License: Public Domain

DARDEN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I believe that upon a jury's finding of negligence on the part of the defendant, its failure to award any damages to the plaintiff cannot be sustained unless there is simply no evidence that the plaintiff suffered any damage whatsoever.
As noted by the majority, after Neher's car struck the van Gregory was driving, Gregory "immediately" sought treatment "at a nearby medical facility." The majority notes Gregory's "follow-up treatments from various medical practitioners," and the stipulation as to certain medical payments having been made on his behalf. It cites jury instructions regarding appropriate considerations as to the jury's decision on damages. The majority then reverses the order for a new trial based upon its conclusion that the evidence does not "conclusively prove[ ] that the automobile accident resulted in Gregory's injuries" inasmuch as the jury "was presented with evidence that Gregory's ‘injury and resulting pain from chronic and severe headaches pre-existed the automobile collision."
The jury returned a verdict for Gregory, finding that Neher was negligent. To the extent that the majority concludes that the jury could have found that all medical expenses incurred by Gregory did not nee-essarily result from the accident, I agree. However, given the undisputed evidence that this was a serious accident and that Gregory did immediately undergo a medical examination after the accident, at least some damages must have been incurred as a result of the accident. It may be that nominal damages would suffice in such a case. But here, no damages were awarded suggesting that it is not reasonable for one involved in an automobile accident to seek a medical evaluation as to any injury therefrom.
Upon the facts of this case, I agree with the trial court that the $0 damages verdiet was contrary to the evidence and contrary *58to law, and I would affirm the order for a new trial on the issue of damages.
ORDER
This Court having heretofore handed down its opinion in this appeal April 18, 2001, marked Memorandum Decision, Not for Publication; and,
Comes now the Appellant, by counsel, and files herein Petition to Publish decision, alleging therein that said decision clarifies and/or modifies a rule of law concerning the validity of an award of zero damages when the jury finds the defendant liable and prays this Court to order the decision to be published, which said Petition is in the following words and figures, to-wit:
(HL)
And the Court, having examined said Petition and being duly advised, now finds that said Petition should be granted and that this Court's opinion in this appeal should now be ordered published.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED'as follows:
1. - The Appellant's Petition to Publish Decision is granted and this Court's opinion heretofore handed down in this cause on April 18, 2001, marked Memorandum Decision, Not for Publication, is now ordered published.