Court Opinion

ID: 9504913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:59:23.92968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:11.400967
License: Public Domain

DICKSON, Justice,
concurring in result.
The majority views the jury verdict as just, noting that the verdict was arguably consistent with the jury’s apparent decision to award special damages only for the plaintiffs physical therapy and initial medical assessment. This rationale omits consideration of the jury’s obvious failure to award any general damages for the inevitable pain and suffering associated with the initial injuries necessitating such treatment. The omission of any award for general damages undermines my confidence in the justness of the verdict.
I agree with the majority, however, that the trial court’s order granting a new trial was not compliant with the specificity requirements of Indiana Trial Rule 59(J). For this reason, I agree that the order granting a new trial must be reversed and the jury verdict reinstated.