Opinion
C.A. No. 01C-01-020-JRJ
Date Submitted: September 6, 2002
Date Decided: October 18, 2002
Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial or Additur Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 59 — DENIED
Somers S. Price, Jr., Esquire Arthur D. Kuhl, Esquire, Potter, Anderson Corroon, LLP
Arthur D. Kuhl, Esquire Michael A. Pedicone, P.A.
Dear Counsel:
This case was tried before a jury on July 31, August 1 and August 2, 2002. The case arises from an automobile accident on U.S. Route 13 North, just south of Wilmington, Delaware which occurred on January 15, 1999. On the second day of trial, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law on the proximate causation of certain injuries sustained by Ronald Reusch as a result of the January 15, 1999 accident. The Court decided as a matter of law that Mr. Reusch's torn medial meniscus in the left knee, and aggravation of existing injuries to his cervical mid-back and lumbar regions, were proximately caused by the January 15, 1999 accident. In granting the plaintiffs' motion, the Court noted that Mr. Reusch had experienced objective symptoms, including a torn medial meniscus, which appeared on an M.R.I., and muscle spasms in his spine. In addition, the Court noted that the defendant offered no evidence to undermine Mr. Reusch's credibility concerning causation of his injuries, nor did the defendant establish any discernable bias or partisanship on behalf of the doctors who testified that those injuries were proximately caused by the accident in question.
On August 2, 2002 the jury rendered a verdict of $13,000.00 to Mr. Reusch and zero dollars to Mrs. Reusch. The plaintiffs have moved for a new trial on the issue of damages or additur based on the size of the jury award. The standard this Court must apply in deciding a motion for new trial or additur is well established. The issue is whether the amount of the award is so "grossly out of proportion to the injuries suffered so as to shock the Court's conscience and sense of justice and the injustice is clear." In determining an additur amount, the Court must grant the defendant every reasonable inference and determine what verdict justifies as an absolute minimum under the facts.
Breeding v. Johnston, Del. Super., C.A. No. 91C-02-195, Taylor, J. (June 10, 1992) (Order) at 2.
See id.
The Court's conscience and sense of justice are not shocked by the $13,000.00 award. The surgical procedure performed on Mr. Reusch's left knee was not complex or extensive. Approximately 15% of his left medial meniscus was removed. Dr. Gelman told the jury that Mr. Reusch was left with "very little in the way of left knee problems," after the surgery. There is little question that Mr. Reusch suffered and continues to suffer some knee pain as a result of the January 15, 1999 accident, however, Mr. Reusch appeared as a young athletic man in good physical condition. He appeared to be very muscular. The jury apparently did not overlook the fact that Mr. Reusch appeared to be in "good shape." A number of the activities Mr. Reusch indicates he can no longer engage in as a result of his knee surgery are activities that many people cease engaging in as they get older. Although Mr. Reusch and his doctors reported that his left knee arthritis is symptomatic on a permanent basis as a result of the auto accident, based on his physical appearance, the jury could have reasonably concluded that he was still able to engage in other physical activities and thus his pain, suffering and permanent impairment were not that severe or limiting.
With respect to the aggravation of Mr. Reusch's neck, mid-back and lumbar conditions, Mr. Reusch testified that his lumbar pain lasted only six months. With respect to the mid-back and neck pain, he required medication and therapy for approximately two and one half years, but the pain and limitation he described was not of the magnitude that it was anywhere near debilitating or life altering. With respect to the jury's zero damage award to Mrs. Reusch for her loss of consortium claim, the record contains numerous references to ongoing serious marital problems and difficulties that plagued their relationship prior to the accident. It is not unreasonable for the jury to conclude that the marital relationship was so impaired as of the date of the accident that Mr. Reusch did not truly suffer a loss of her husband's companionship, aide, society and affection as a proximate result of the accident. Although the Court finds that $13,000.00 for a torn medial meniscus, surgical repair, medication and therapy, and aggravation of a neck, mid-back and lumbar condition is low, the amount simply does not shock the court's conscience and sense of justice. Clearly the jury did not attach as much significance to the torn meniscus and aggravation of the soft tissue injuries that the plaintiff did, however, that alone is not a sufficient basis to grant a new trial or additur. If it were, the Court would be more inundated with new trial motions than it already is. The plaintiff sought and received a fair jury trial. When a plaintiff seeks to resolve a dispute through trial by jury, the plaintiff bears a risk of this type of award. As noted in Dunkle v. Prettyman, "the Court's conscience is not easily `shocked;' it is grounded by a high regard for the jury system and a respect for a decision of a party who chooses to avail himself of it." As we know, not all jurors view injuries the same way or value them the same way. The collective sense of this jury was that the value of Mr. Reusch's injuries is $13,000.00 and that his wife deserves no loss of consortium award. The Court will not disturb this verdict. Although the amount awarded to Mr. Reusch is less than the plaintiffs sought, and is, in the Court's view, on the low side for injuries of this type, the Court cannot say that the award is so grossly out of proportion so as to shock the Court's conscience and sense of justice. Wherefore, for the reasons stated above, the plaintiffs' Motion for New Trial or Additur Pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 59 is DENIED.
See Dunkle v. Prettyman, 2002 WL 833375 (Del.Super.) at *3: "Now, unhappy with the result, [plaintiff] asks the Court to supplant the jury or, at least, ignore the product of its deliberative efforts. The Court will not do so in this, or in any other case where the trial was fair and the resulting verdict was not `shocking'."
Id. at *3 N.10.