Opinion
No. 3-739 / 02-1993
Filed October 15, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Carroll County, Gary L. McMinimee, Judge.
Plaintiffs appeal from the district court ruling denying their motion for new trial. AFFIRMED.
Warren Bush, Wall Lake, for appellant.
A. Eric Neu of Neu, Minnich, Comito Neu, P.C., Carroll, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Justice Villers and her son, Lucas Siepker, were involved in an automobile collision with Ryan Schweers on September 25, 2000. Following a jury trial, Villers was awarded $3937 for past medical expenses and $125 for past pain and suffering. The jury found Schweers was not the proximate cause of damage to Siepker. The trial court denied Villers motion for new trial, and declined to increase the damage award. Villers appeals.
We review the district court's denial of Viller's motion for new trial for abuse of discretion. See Estate of Long ex rel. Smith v. Broadlawns Med. Ctr., 656 N.W.2d 71, 88 (Iowa 2002). We are reluctant to interfere with a jury verdict or the district court's consideration of a motion for new trial made in response to the verdict. Id.
In denying Viller's motion for new trial, the district court stated:
It appears that the jury found it appropriate for Ms. Villers to go to the various doctors to have her condition checked out but concluded that only a minimum amount of her pain was due to the collision and that she suffered no loss of function as a result of the collision. There is substantial evidence to support this verdict.
We agree. Whether damages are adequate depends on the particular facts of the each case. Witte v. Vogt, 443 N.W.2d 715, 716 (Iowa 1989). Villers sought treatment from several medical professionals for various complaints. However, Villers has a lengthy history of medical problems attributable to prior accidents. Some of Villers post-collision complaints mimicked the medical problems that existed prior to the crash. At least one of her complaints, "night blindness," was not attributable to the collision. An award of $125 in past pain and suffering is not so inadequate in these circumstances to warrant a new trial.
The jury's verdict finding Schweers was not the proximate cause of any injuries to Siepker is also supported by substantial evidence. The emergency record states Siepker had "no definite injuries." It also states, "Has no obvious injuries . . . but is running up and down the halls." The district court found Siepker's medical bills were paid by his father's insurance, who was not a party to the action. On appeal, Villers states this is incorrect. She instead contends Siepker's medical bills were paid by Edward and Peggy Shumate's automobile insurance carrier. Regardless, Villers admitted in her testimony she did not have to pay any medical costs for Siepker. The evidence supported the jury's verdict and the district court did not err in denying the motion for new trial.
Villers was driving the Shumate's vehicle at the time of the crash.