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.
Kratzke v. Nestle-Beich, Inc.
Citations: 307 Ark. 158; 817 S.W.2d 889; 1991 Ark. LEXIS 526Docket: 91-154
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; November 4, 1991; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Robin Kratzke appeals a $2,000 judgment in her favor against Nestle-Beich, Inc., arguing the verdict is inconsistent with the evidence and alleging jury misconduct. The accident occurred on November 18, 1988, when her car was struck from behind by a Nestle-Beich employee, resulting in $63 in vehicle damage and extensive medical expenses totaling $47,060.12, as she claimed injuries including paralysis and numbness. Nestle-Beich admitted liability, leaving only damages for the jury's determination, which returned a verdict of $2,000 on October 22, 1990. Kratzke's motion for a new trial, citing that the damages awarded were clearly erroneous and alleging juror misconduct due to contact with Nestle-Beich’s witnesses, was denied by the circuit judge. The reviewing court found substantial evidence supporting the jury's verdict, including testimonies indicating that Kratzke had prior medical issues and that her current conditions may not be directly attributable to the accident. Expert witnesses noted Kratzke exhibited preexisting conditions that could account for her symptoms, and thus the jury could reasonably conclude that her medical expenses were not solely related to the incident. Kratzke's claim for jury misconduct was dismissed because she did not provide necessary affidavits in her abstract, which is required for review under Rule 9(d) of the Arkansas Supreme Court Rules. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment.