Opinion
C.A. No. 02C-08-031 HDR.
Submitted April 15, 2004.
Decided August 2, 2004.
Upon Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial ADDITUR GRANTED.
Scott E. Chambers, Esq., of Schmittinger and Rodriguez, Dover, Delaware, for the Plaintiff.
Robert B. Young, Esq., of Young Young, Dover, Delaware, for the Defendant.
ORDER
This 2nd day of August, 2004, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial, the arguments of counsel and the record in this case, it appears that:
1) This is a civil action for uninsured motorist benefits arising out of an automobile accident on September 3, 2000 in Hartford, Connecticut. Plaintiff Alison C. White ("Plaintiff") was driving her father's vehicle which was insured by Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (" Defendant"). Plaintiff proceeded into an intersection where she was struck by an uninsured vehicle. The driver of that vehicle disregarded a red light. At a jury trial, Defendant conceded that Plaintiff is entitled to uninsured motorist benefits under the State Farm policy but contended that Plaintiff's injuries from the accident were very limited. The jury awarded Plaintiff zero dollars in damages. Plaintiff has moved for a new trial.
2) A jury verdict is presumed to be correct and just. The Court has the authority to grant a new trial if the verdict is out of proportion to the injury so as to shock the Court's conscience and sense of justice, or if the verdict was based upon passion, partiality, prejudice, mistake or misapprehension on the part of the jury. Zero verdicts have been upheld under this standard of review. They have also been found to be inadequate as a matter of law when uncontradicted medical testimony establishes a causal link between an accident and injuries sustained. Each case must be decided on its own facts.
Mills v. Telenczak, 345 A. 2d 424 (Del. 1975).
Storey v. Castner, 314 A. 2d 187 (Del. 1973); McCloskey v. McKelvy, 174 A. 2d 691 (Del. 1961).
Hall v. Dorsey, 1998 Del. Super. LEXIS 490, Quillen, J. (Del.Super. 1995).
Maier v. Santucci, 697 A. 2d 747, 749 (Del. 1997); Jones v. Shisler, 2002 Del. Super. LEXIS 329, Slights, J. (Del.Super. 2002); Woodall v. Yochis, C.A. No. 00C-08-058, Ridgely, P.J. (Del.Super. 2001).
3) When the evidence in this case is viewed in the light most favorable to Defendant it is apparent that Plaintiff sustained a contusion to her knee that required treatment from an orthopedic surgeon and concurrent therapy for six weeks. While this injury is significantly less than all of the injuries claimed, a zero dollar award is inadequate as a matter of law. I conclude that an additur to the zero damages award in the amount of $3,000 is appropriate.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that if Defendant agrees in writing to accept an additur of $3,000 and to bear its own costs within 10 days, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion for a new trial. If Defendant does not agree, then a new trial will be ordered.