Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Burt v. Mathis
Citations: 550 So. 2d 1041; 1989 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 289; 1989 WL 102850Docket: Civ. 7185
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; September 7, 1989; Alabama; State Appellate Court
An appeal was brought by Burt against the trial court's order granting Mathis's motion for a new trial following an automobile accident on May 1, 1987. Mathis, who was involved in the accident as a driver, initially received a jury verdict of only $27.50 for his injuries. Mathis claimed that he sustained a soft tissue injury with potential disc damage, supported by medical testimony indicating he incurred approximately $4,000 in necessary medical expenses and a 15 to 20 percent impairment rating of his lumbar spine. Dr. Flynn, an orthopedic surgeon, testified that Mathis experienced significant pain and would require future surgery, and that his injuries would affect his ability to work. The appellate court evaluated whether the trial court had erred in granting the new trial based on the inadequacy of damages. The court noted that the granting or refusal of a new trial is at the trial court's discretion, which is typically upheld unless a legal right is abused. After reviewing the evidence, the appellate court found the jury's verdict to be unsupported by the evidence, affirming the trial court's decision to grant a new trial due to inadequate damages. The ruling was affirmed with concurrence from other judges.