Opinion
No. 98C-08-003.
Submitted: March 20, 2000.
Decided: March 29, 2000.
Upon Plaintiff's Motion for Additur or Motion for New Trial — Denied.
Upon Defendant's Motion for Costs — Denied.
Stephen Hampton, Esquire, 6 North Bedford Street, Grady Hampton, Dover, Delaware 19904.
Arthur D. Kuhi, Esquire, 200 W. 9th Street, Suite 700, P.O. Box 1395, Wilmington, Delaware 19899.
Edward Minus, Jr., 230 Greenblade Drive, Dover, Delaware 19901.
Dear Counsel and Mr. Minus:
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Additur, or in the alternative, Motion for New Trial, as well as, Defendant's Motion for Costs. This case resulted from a minor-impact rear-end collision that caused subjective complaints of pain and soft tissue injuries to the Plaintiff. After a jury trial, Plaintiff received a favorable verdict in the amount of $2,500. Plaintiff is now asking the Court to disregard the jury's verdict and move for a new trial or, in the alternative, for additur based upon the following:
1. Admission of photographs of Plaintiff's car was in error because they were irrelevant and prejudicial since they called for the jury to speculate that no injuries could have occurred from this minor-impact accident without expert testimony;
2. Court erred in not allowing Plaintiff to testify that Allstate paid her benefits for over a year without claiming that they were not related to the accident;
3. The amount of the verdict should shock the conscience of the Court; and
4. Other courts have granted additur under similar circumstances when the jury's verdict did not fully compensate the plaintiff for subjective injuries.
The Defendant's cornerstone argument is that the Court should be deferential to the jury's verdict. Defendant is also arguing that since the Plaintiff's own doctor, Dr. DuShuttle, testified that there needs to be a transfer of force in order for injuries to occur, this validates the admission of the photographs to demonstrate that no transfer of force occurred.
In response to the Plaintiff's Motion in Limine in this case, I ruled prior to trial that photographs of the Plaintiff's car were relevant and were not overly prejudicial to the Plaintiff's case; however, I concluded that defense counsel would not be allowed to speculate as to the amount of force involved in the accident and would not be allowed to comment on whether that force caused these injuries. At trial, counsel for Defendant merely argued that the pictures were there for the jury to see and it was up to them to decide what injuries resulted from this accident. According to Plaintiff, this was in error as it called for the jury to speculate as to the amount of force involved in the crash and whether that force could have caused the injuries to Plaintiff. This argument has already been ruled on by the Court. However, I once again conclude that the pictures were extremely relevant to the Defendant's theory of the case and the limitation on defense counsel's arguments in closing protected the Plaintiff from any prejudice as a result of their admission. Therefore, this argument is without merit and the Court's previous ruling will stand.
Plaintiff's next argument is also without merit. Plaintiff contends that the Court was in error by not allowing her to testify that Allstate paid her medical bills for one year after the accident without claiming that these injuries were not related to the accident. This argument does not have a logical premise under Delaware law because Allstate was under an obligation to pay these bills as a result of Delaware's no-fault insurance provisions since they were the Plaintiff's uninsured motorist carrier. At trial, the Court ruled that since these bills were paid under no-fault, Plaintiff would not be allowed to testify to that because evidence of that nature is clearly inadmissible. Moreover, the Defendant is permitted to produce several, even conflicting, defenses to their case. Thus, the refusal of the Court to allow the Plaintiff to testify about Allstate paying her medical bills without complaint was not in error. Regardless, even if it was in error, it was harmless error as it did not affect the Plaintiff's case given the favorable verdict for the Plaintiff.
Finally, Plaintiff argues that this verdict should shock the conscience of the Court and has submitted numerous cases in which a court has granted additur because an award for subjective injuries was not sufficient. The Defendant's response is two-fold. First, the Defendant claims that the Plaintiff's credibility was questionable in this case and that is a matter left to the sole discretion of the jury. Second, Defendant asserts that since this was such a minor-impact collision that the jury was free to infer that the injuries were not as bad as the Plaintiff was claiming. The Court agrees with the Defendant's rationale, especially in light of the fact that the Plaintiff's own medical expert testified that his conclusions were drawn from merely subjective complaints of pain and no objective findings. Therefore, this court will not disturb the jury's award of damages to the Plaintiff in the amount of $2,500. The jury had sufficient evidence before it to determine that the Plaintiff may not have been injured to the extent that she was claiming. Thus, the Plaintiff's Motion for Additur. or in the alternative, Motion for New Trial, is denied.
The next issue before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Costs. The Court recognizes that before trial in this case there was an arbitration that resulted in a Plaintiff's decision in the amount of $5,000, and that after the arbitration, the Defendant made an Offer of Judgment in the amount of the arbitration award. Since the jury verdict came in less than both the arbitration award and the Offer of Judgment, Defendant is asking this Court to grant him costs in the amount of the arbitration and for the amount the Defendant's medical expert, Dr. Robert Varipapa's deposition and the costs related to its taking. Whether or not to grant these costs is within the Court's sound discretion.
Although an award of costs to the Defendant may follow from the preceding set of facts, I will not require the Plaintiff to bear the costs of this action. The award of damages in this case was less than the amount of the arbitration award; however, the total amount of costs claimed by Defendant is $1,705. The jury's verdict was for $2,500. Granting costs in this case would leave the Plaintiff in the precarious position of taking her case to trial, winning a favorable jury verdict and having to reimburse her attorney for the costs of the case. Although Defendant may be entitled to costs in this matter because of the Offer of Judgment, the Court is not going to burden the Plaintiff with the costs of litigation. The Defendant did not obtain a favorable verdict in the instant matter and requiring the Plaintiff to pay costs would leave her with no remedy for the injuries that the jury determined she suffered. Therefore, the Defendant's Motion for Costs is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.
oc: Prothonotary xc: Order Distribution