Opinion
C.A. No. 01C-02-022 (THG)
December 2, 2002
A. Richard Barros, Esquire Barros, McNamara, Malkiewicz Taylor, P.A.
Jeffrey A. Young, Esquire Young Young
Gentlemen:
This is my decision on Plaintiff Fontane L. Nichols' ("Nichols") Motion for a New Trial and Defendant Frank J. Bruno's ("Bruno") Motion for Costs. Nichols' Motion for a New Trial is granted and Bruno's Motion for Costs is denied for the reasons set forth herein.
Plaintiff Lauretta Nichols voluntarily dismissed her loss of consortium claim at trial.
Nichols and Bruno were involved in an automobile accident on July 6, 1999. The case was tried before a jury for four days. Bruno admitted at the trial that he caused the accident. At the close of evidence, I ruled that the accident caused Nichols' injuries, leaving the jury only to decide the amount of damages for Nichols. The evidence at trial was that Nichols had three surgeries on his shoulder to correct the problems caused by the accident, that Nichols incurred medical expenses for these surgeries and other medical treatment that he received, and expected to incur further medical expenses in the future, and that Nichols underwent chiropractic treatment and physical therapy. Despite this, the jury returned a verdict of zero.
The standard for granting a motion for a new trial is whether the amount of the verdict 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." I am shocked by the jury's award of no damages. This award in no way reflects the evidence introduced at trial and simply cannot be justified. Therefore, Nichols' Motion for a New Trial on the issue of damages is granted. Bruno's Motion for Costs is denied because I have granted Nichols' Motion for a New Trial.
Breeding v. Johnston, Del. Super., C.A. No. 91C-02-195, Taylor, J. (June 10, 1992) at 2.
IT IS SO ORDERED.