§17.5 Personal Injury Damages
1. Marshall v. Cintas Corp., M2005-01518-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2007).
The Court's Summary:
"This is an auto accident case. In October 2000, the individual defendant was driving a truck owned by his employer, the corporate defendant. The truck rear-ended a vehicle which in turn rear-ended the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the defendants for damages sustained in the accident. The plaintiff’s complaint was later amended to assert a claim for punitive damages against the corporate defendant. The claim for punitive damages was dismissed by the trial court before trial. After a jury trial, the jury awarded the plaintiff approximately $108,000 for various types of damages on a detailed verdict form. The jury did not award the plaintiff damages for permanent impairment or for past or future loss of enjoyment of life. The plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was denied. The plaintiff now appeals, claiming that no material evidence supported the jury’s decision to not award him damages for permanent impairment and loss of enjoyment of life, that the trial court erred in dismissing his claim for punitive damages, and that the trial court made other reversible errors at trial. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision approving the jury verdict." View opinion.
2. Borner v. Autry, W2007-00731-COA-R9-CV Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2007).
The Court's Summary:
"This is a Tenn. R. App. P. 9 interlocutory appeal from the Order of the trial court striking medical bills attached to Plaintiffs/Appellants’ complaint pursuant to T.C.A. § 24-5-113. The trial court specifically held that, because Plaintiffs/Appellants incurred total medical expenses in excess of the statutory maximum of $4,000.00, the Plaintiffs/Appellants were not entitled to the statutory presumption of reasonableness and necessity. Finding no errors of law, we affirm and remand." View majority opinion. View concurring opinion.
3. Sara Hutchison v. Gregory L. Rutt, et al. - M2006-02255-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"In this personal injury action arising from an automobile accident, the defendants, who conceded liability, contest the trial judge’s award to plaintiff of $104,043.29 in damages. Having determined the evidence preponderates against the trial judge’s determination that the accident caused the plaintiff’s migraine headaches and the amount of the award, we modify the judgment by reducing the award of damages to $51,043.29." View opinion.
4. Patricia Ambrose v. Blythe Batsuk, M2006-01131-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. April 30, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"This case arose from a low-speed collision in which the plaintiff’s car was rear-ended by the defendant’s car. The plaintiff claimed that the accident caused her to suffer neck and shoulder injuries, resulting in considerable pain and suffering. The defendant conceded fault for the accident, but denied that the accident had caused the plaintiff any actual injury. The plaintiff attempted to prove causation by offering the deposition testimony of the primary care doctor who had treated her. The trial court excluded the doctor’s testimony because he was unable to state that the accident more probably than not caused the plaintiff’s physical injuries. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant and the trial court entered judgment thereon. We affirm."
View opinion.
The Court's Summary:
"This is an auto accident case. In October 2000, the individual defendant was driving a truck owned by his employer, the corporate defendant. The truck rear-ended a vehicle which in turn rear-ended the plaintiff’s vehicle. The plaintiff filed this lawsuit against the defendants for damages sustained in the accident. The plaintiff’s complaint was later amended to assert a claim for punitive damages against the corporate defendant. The claim for punitive damages was dismissed by the trial court before trial. After a jury trial, the jury awarded the plaintiff approximately $108,000 for various types of damages on a detailed verdict form. The jury did not award the plaintiff damages for permanent impairment or for past or future loss of enjoyment of life. The plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was denied. The plaintiff now appeals, claiming that no material evidence supported the jury’s decision to not award him damages for permanent impairment and loss of enjoyment of life, that the trial court erred in dismissing his claim for punitive damages, and that the trial court made other reversible errors at trial. After a careful review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s decision approving the jury verdict." View opinion.
2. Borner v. Autry, W2007-00731-COA-R9-CV Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2007).
The Court's Summary:
"This is a Tenn. R. App. P. 9 interlocutory appeal from the Order of the trial court striking medical bills attached to Plaintiffs/Appellants’ complaint pursuant to T.C.A. § 24-5-113. The trial court specifically held that, because Plaintiffs/Appellants incurred total medical expenses in excess of the statutory maximum of $4,000.00, the Plaintiffs/Appellants were not entitled to the statutory presumption of reasonableness and necessity. Finding no errors of law, we affirm and remand." View majority opinion. View concurring opinion.
3. Sara Hutchison v. Gregory L. Rutt, et al. - M2006-02255-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"In this personal injury action arising from an automobile accident, the defendants, who conceded liability, contest the trial judge’s award to plaintiff of $104,043.29 in damages. Having determined the evidence preponderates against the trial judge’s determination that the accident caused the plaintiff’s migraine headaches and the amount of the award, we modify the judgment by reducing the award of damages to $51,043.29." View opinion.
4. Patricia Ambrose v. Blythe Batsuk, M2006-01131-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. April 30, 2008).
The Court's Summary:
"This case arose from a low-speed collision in which the plaintiff’s car was rear-ended by the defendant’s car. The plaintiff claimed that the accident caused her to suffer neck and shoulder injuries, resulting in considerable pain and suffering. The defendant conceded fault for the accident, but denied that the accident had caused the plaintiff any actual injury. The plaintiff attempted to prove causation by offering the deposition testimony of the primary care doctor who had treated her. The trial court excluded the doctor’s testimony because he was unable to state that the accident more probably than not caused the plaintiff’s physical injuries. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant and the trial court entered judgment thereon. We affirm."
View opinion.