Downs v. Ackerman
| Docket Number: | 2011-CT-00089-SCT Linked Case(s): 2011-CA-00089-COA ; 2011-CA-00089-COA ; 2011-CT-00089-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-20-2013 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS REVERSED. THE JUDGMENT OF THE JACKSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS REINSTATED AND AFFIRMED |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-26-2012 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Additur - Medical expenses Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson and Randolph, P.JJ., Lamar, Kitchens, Pierce, King and Coleman, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY Writ of Certiorari: Yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-21-2010 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Krebs Disposition: JURY VERDICT OF $20,000 IN FAVOR OF APPELLANT HONDA DOWNS Case Number: 2009-00116(1) |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court found that the trial court’s denial of Downs’s motion for an additur or a new trial on damages was not an abuse of discretion, it reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstated and affirmed the judgment of the Jackson County Circuit Court. The original COA opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO77688.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Honda Downs and Robert Downs |
KENNETH M. ALTMAN
MICHAEL SCOTT BISHOP |
||
| Appellee: | Peter L. Ackerman | H. BENJAMIN MULLEN |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Personal injury - Additur - Medical expenses |
| Summary of the Facts: | Honda Downs sued Dr. Peter Ackerman for injuries sustained in a motor-vehicle collision when Dr. Ackerman rear-ended Downs. Dr. Ackerman admitted liability, and the case went to trial on damages. The jury awarded Downs $20,000. The court denied Downs’ motion for an additur or a new trial. Downs appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for an additur, or a new trial on damages if the additur was not accepted. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Court of Appeals found that Dr. Ackerman had failed to offer sufficient evidence to rebut Downs’s claim that her medical expenses were necessary and reasonable. Because a jury award is not merely advisory, it generally will not be set aside unless so unreasonable as to strike mankind at first blush as being beyond all measure, unreasonable in amount and outrageous. Even if medical bills are necessarily and reasonably incurred for a particular condition, that fact does not mandate a finding that those medical bills were incurred as a result of the accident in question. While Downs’s medical bills established a presumption that those bills were reasonable and necessary for the treatment of her injuries, her medical bills were not prima facie evidence that the accident was the proximate cause of Downs’s injuries. Downs had the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the accident proximately caused her neck injury, carpal tunnel syndrome, and central disequilibrium syndrome. Downs attempted to meet this burden with the testimony of two doctors, who testified to a reasonable degree of medical probability that these conditions had been caused by the accident. Dr. Ackerman attempted to cast doubt on this causation testimony through cross-examination. Given the evidence, the verdict was not so unreasonable as to strike mankind at first blush as being beyond all measure, unreasonable in amount and outrageous. Thus, the trial court’s denial of Downs’s motion for an additur or a new trial on damages was not an abuse of discretion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
