Opinion
Feb. 27, 1973.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
A. Daniel Rooney, Aurora, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Bruce & Sandblom, James M. Bruce, Deputy Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
PIERCE, Judge.
The three plaintiffs in this action were occupants of an automobile that was struck from the rear by the defendant's vehicle. The case was submitted to the jury solely on the issue of damages. Defendant admitted negligence prior to the commencement of the trial. The jury returned verdicts in favor of each of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgments entered thereon.
They contend that the jury's verdicts are inadequate as a matter of law. Specifically, they argue that the dollar amounts awarded to each plaintiff evidences that the jury failed to compensate them for pain and suffering. One plaintiff also contends that the jury did not compensate her for lost income she could have expected from work as a baby-sitter. We agree with the ruling of the trial court that the determination of the damages to be awarded each plaintiff was within the province of the jury, and affirm.
Here, the alleged injuries to each plaintiff were based upon various symptoms resulting from claimed hyperextension of neck muscles. Thus, this is not a case where the nature of the physical injuries conclusively establishes that there had to have been pain and suffering. Kistler v. Halsey, 173 Colo. 540, 481 P.2d 722. Nor is this a case where there was evidence of pain and suffering other than plaintiffs' own testimony. Denton v. Navratil, 170 Colo. 158, 459 P.2d 761. It is disputed as to whether the impact was severe enough to cause the alleged injuries, and because reasonable minds could differ as to the severity of those injuries, it was within the province of the jury, as the finder of fact, to determine each plaintiff's damages. Roth v. Stark Lumber Co., Colo.App., 500 P.2d 145. On the same basis, we conclude that the one plaintiff's claim for loss of work was also a matter exclusively within the province of the jury. Lehrer v. Lorenzen, 124 Colo. 17, 233 P.2d 382.
The record before us does not indicate that the jury neglected to take into consideration all the evidence pertaining to the damages sustained by the parties, or that the verdict is grossly and manifestly inadequate. Odell v. Public Service Co., 158 Colo. 404, 407 P.2d 330.
Judgment affirmed.
SILVERSTEIN, C.J., and DWYER, J., concur.