Opinion
C.A. No. 96C-01-272-WTQ.
Submitted: June 12, 2000.
Decided: June 26, 2000.
Letter Opinion and Order on Plaintiffs' Motion for a New Trial or Additur — ADDITUR GRANTED
Gentlemen:
The above civil action has been a difficult civil damages-only case. The nature of the case indeed presents the most difficult type of damage evaluation our juries are called upon to make. Pain and suffering is simply difficult for juries, and Judges, to evaluate. The disputes here include the severity of the impact, wide differences among professionals about the severity of the injuries, difficult medical evidence, highly speculative evidence about employment impact, and serious questions of credibility. The Court enters this round of this fray gingerly.
I consider Plaintiffs' first two arguments to be largely a makeweight. It is difficult to seriously consider any contention about jury misbehavior, allegedly obvious for all to see, which was not raised contemporaneously, and certainly difficult to relate the conduct alleged to a compromise verdict. My own recollection is that I observed, near the beginning of the trial, one juror more animated than usual, but did not sua sponte think it worthy of a comment. It seems obvious that the Plaintiffs were content to go to deliberations with this jury (there were two alternates, at least that is my recollection), and the jury was chosen carefully by counsel (all challenges on both sides were exercised). The jury was specifically instructed that the medical bills amounted to $30,218.14 and there can be no question the jury understood the medical bills were in issue. Moreover, the Plaintiff should not be permitted to use going for health care positively and then try to deny the Defendant noting, with the same frame of reference, that the visit was not until the day after the accident. There was no error and there surely was no harm entitled to protection now.
The real issue, of course, is the madequacy of damages. Obviously, the Court cannot consider the offer of settlement made by the Defendants' insurer. Let me just say, however, that the insurer bent over backwards in an effort to resolve this case and deserves commendation. It would be ironic if such public responsibility could be used against an insurance company. The dollar offer to settle simply cannot be a factor in this Motion.
The real problem here was that Mr. Murphy had no solid earnings evidence and was a terrible damage witness in his own case. Indeed, he was so bad that the Court advised counsel at sidebar as soon as he finished testifying that, if the offer was still on the table, Plaintiffs should pause to consider it. It was clear the trial was not going well for the Plaintiffs. Mrs. Murphy was a better witness, but the walking with the children at the mall story was unfortunate. The Plaintiffs did poorly because their testimony understandably failed in the jury's eyes to support the version of the medical testimony they were advocating.
My own view of the evidence is that the award was clearly light. The medical expenses were reasonable and, in the course of treatment, professionally recommended. There is pain and suffering here that was overlooked by the jury and Mrs. Murphy has suffered loss of consortium. A reasonable jury could find against Mr. Murphy on the earnings issue, the evidence of which was shaky at best.
The verdict was grossly inadequate, perhaps caused by the jury's disapproval of some of the claims being sought and the Plaintiffs' credibility. But the Court should not be a party to that disapproval when the amounts suggest it borders on inadvertent prejudice (non-racial) by the jury. The jury verdicts should be increased by way of additur.
The Court concludes the evidence justifies a verdict of no less than $75,000 for Henry D. Murphy and no less than $15,000 for Connie Murphy. If Defendants do not agree to the increase of both of the verdicts to these amounts, a new trial will be granted as to both solely on the question of damages. The Defendants are directed to indicate by letter to the Prothonotary within ten (10) days if they agree to the increases specified. If they agree, the Prothonotary is directed to make the specified increases in the judgment without further Order from the Court. In the absence of such an agreement by the Defendants, an order for a new trial for both claims for damages only is directed to be entered on the docket, again without further order from the Court. IT IS SO ORDERED.