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.
Allen v. Minnick
Citations: 182 W. Va. 755; 391 S.E.2d 905; 1990 W. Va. LEXIS 45Docket: No. 19079
Court: West Virginia Supreme Court; April 12, 1990; West Virginia; State Supreme Court
Dixie Lee Minnick and Carrie Cadle appeal a judgment from the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, which found a jury verdict of $100 in favor of Ivory Elsie Allen insufficient and ordered a new trial on damages. The incident occurred on October 22, 1984, when Mrs. Allen was a passenger in her husband's vehicle, which collided with a car driven by Mrs. Minnick and owned by Ms. Cadle in a K-Mart parking lot. Neither defendant was injured, and the plaintiffs’ vehicle sustained minimal damage. Mrs. Allen reported a severe headache and worsening neck pain after the accident, ultimately seeking treatment from orthopedic surgeon Dr. Andrew E. Landis. Dr. Landis found a 30% limitation of motion in her neck and diagnosed her with permanent degenerative arthritis linked to the accident. He stated she would require ongoing orthopedic care. The parties agreed that Mrs. Allen's medical expenses totaled $948.55, yet the jury initially awarded no damages and later assessed $100 after being instructed that her husband's negligence was not imputed to her. The trial court declared a mistrial due to the inadequate damages awarded and called for a new trial solely on this issue. Citing precedents, the court noted that a jury's verdict must reflect actual proven losses when liability is undisputed. The defendants argued the jury could reasonably conclude that Mrs. Allen's medical expenses were not a proximate result of the accident, citing a delay in treatment and a claimed pre-existing condition. However, Dr. Landis testified that Mrs. Allen had no prior neck issues, and the initial x-ray did not show degenerative changes. The court concluded that the jury's verdict was clearly inadequate as it failed to account for stipulated medical expenses and omitted compensation for future medical costs and pain and suffering. The Circuit Court's judgment ordering a new trial on damages was affirmed.