Opinion
No. 42571.
July 2, 1971.
Damages — rear-end collision — denial of recovery for personal injuries.
Action in the Hennepin County District Court for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff Barbara Caspers as a passenger in an automobile owned and operated by plaintiff Elmer B. Caspers, which collided with one driven by defendant; and for consequential damages and property damage allegedly sustained by said Elmer Caspers. The case was tried before Edward J. Parker, Judge, and a jury. The court directed a verdict against defendant, and the jury assessed plaintiff Elmer Caspers' damages as $73.88 and plaintiff Barbara Caspers' damages as $0.00. Plaintiffs appealed from an order denying their alternative motion for a new trial on the issue of damages only or for a new trial on all issues. Affirmed.
Primus Primus and Lee B. Primus, for appellants.
Fitzgerald, Fitzgerald Stich and Robert T. Stich, for respondent.
Heard before Knutson, C. J., and Nelson, Otis, Peterson, and Kelly, JJ.
This action arises out of a collision which occurred when a car occupied by plaintiff Barbara Caspers was struck from the rear by a car which defendant, Kathleen Kalpin, was driving. The jury awarded Elmer Caspers $73.88 for damage to his automobile but denied recovery to Mrs. Caspers. They appeal from an order denying a new trial. The only issue is whether as a matter of law Mrs. Caspers is entitled to damages. We hold that she is not.
As plaintiffs' repair bill suggests, the impact was minimal. Mrs. Caspers had sustained injuries to her lower back in June 1957. In the matter before us she claims injuries to her neck. For reasons which are not disclosed, the physician who attended Mrs. Caspers at the time of this accident did not testify. The orthopedic surgeon who did testify was first consulted some 8 months after the accident. We have noted:
"* * * The practice of ignoring doctors who are in the best position to evaluate an injury in favor of one who examines a litigant shortly before trial is subject to the suspicion that injuries based on subjective symptoms are not as serious as the party claims them to be." Gordon v. Land of Lakes Motor Co. 262 Minn. 97, 100, 113 N.W.2d 576, 577.
This is a case of another rear-end collision where the jury is better able to assess the origin of plaintiff's complaints than is an appellate court. The jury has determined that her problems were not attributable to the collision. On this record we are not disposed to disturb their findings. Tibbetts v. Nyberg, 276 Minn. 431, 150 N.W.2d 687.
Affirmed.