Sanders v. Gabbard

Citation: 2012 Ohio 176Docket: 96693

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; January 18, 2012; Ohio; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the denial of Laura and Scott Sanders' motion for a new trial following a jury's failure to award damages for pain and suffering despite finding Virginia Gabbard liable for some economic damages from an auto accident. The Sanders had sued Gabbard seeking compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, and emotional distress after a collision on May 9, 2007, where Gabbard's car struck Laura's vehicle. Although Laura initially refused medical treatment at the scene, she later sought care for neck and back pain, which was diagnosed as a cervical strain and muscle spasm. Despite a normal cervical spine examination, she underwent various treatments, including physical therapy and surgery, but reported ongoing pain and functional limitations. Laura claimed $53,597.42 in medical expenses and $9,460 in lost wages. Gabbard did not present witnesses but contended that Laura's medical records indicated pre-existing chronic neck pain and minimal injuries resulting from the accident.

On January 21, 2011, a jury ruled in favor of Laura, determining she sustained injuries in an accident but awarded her only $2,894.86 for medical expenses, denying any compensation for pain and suffering. The jury also sided with Gabbard on Scott’s loss of consortium claim. Laura and Scott subsequently filed for a new trial or additur on February 11, 2011, contending that the damages awarded were insufficient and not supported by the evidence. The trial court denied this motion on March 22, 2011. 

In their appeal, Laura and Scott argued that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant a new trial due to the inadequate jury verdict, particularly the omission of pain and suffering damages. Their motion cited Civ. R. 59(A) grounds, including inadequate damages influenced by passion or prejudice, a judgment unsupported by evidence, and a judgment contrary to law. 

The Ohio Supreme Court's precedent dictates that a new trial may only be granted if the trial court's decision constitutes an abuse of discretion, defined as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. The appellate review focuses on the trial court's rationale for denying the motion rather than the evidence supporting the verdict. Established Ohio law permits a new trial for inadequate damages if it appears the jury neglected to consider some relevant damage elements. However, the trial court found no indication that the jury acted improperly, concluding that the verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence when viewed in context.

The jury correctly considered the elements of Laura’s claim in determining damages, as the instructions and verdict forms adequately addressed both economic and non-economic damages, including pain and suffering. The jury awarded Laura $2,894.86 for past medical expenses but did not allocate damages for pain and suffering, indicating a belief that her injuries were not significant. Six jurors confirmed their intention to award this amount when questioned by the judge, while two jurors ruled in favor of the defendant, Gabbard, on all claims.

Courts generally hesitate to overturn verdicts concerning disputed injury severity. The jury appeared to disbelieve Laura’s testimony and that of her experts due to contradictions in her medical records. Although an award for pain and suffering could have been justified, it was not mandatory. Laura and Scott failed to provide credible evidence that the verdict was influenced by passion or prejudice, as required for a new trial under Civ.R. 59(A)(4).

To assess potential bias, courts consider the awarded damages, the presence of incompetent evidence, and any trial misconduct. Laura and Scott's claim that the jury rushed to a verdict to avoid returning on Monday does not demonstrate passion or prejudice. Additionally, allegations of improper jury influence during closing arguments were found unsubstantiated upon review of the trial transcript. The trial court's decision to deny the motion for a new trial was based on the jury’s perception of Laura’s injuries, supported by the medical records and credible evidence in the record.

Laura and Scott contended that the trial court erred by denying their motion for a new trial, asserting the jury's verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence regarding Laura's pain and suffering due to Gabbard's negligence. They claimed to have provided substantial evidence of Laura's suffering, yet the jury awarded no damages for it. The legal standard indicates that an appellate court will not overturn a trial court's decision if there is any competent, credible evidence supporting it, as the trial court's observations of witness demeanor and testimony credibility are not fully captured in the record.

Citing previous cases, the court noted that while inconsistencies in evidence could warrant a new trial, the current case did not align with those precedents, particularly since the jury did not award Laura her full medical expenses. Gabbard's arguments focused on inconsistencies in Laura's medical records, including a long-standing history of pain prior to the accident, which Laura attributed to various factors, including a six-month gap in treatment and other medical issues not related to the accident.

Despite Laura's explanations for these inconsistencies, they still provided credible support for the trial court's ruling. The court acknowledged the harshness of the jury's verdict but concluded it was not reversible. Hence, the trial court's decision to deny the motion for a new trial was upheld, affirming the judgment and ordering costs to be recovered from the appellants while noting reasonable grounds for the appeal. A special mandate was also issued to execute the judgment.