Dobbins v. Vann
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-02104-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-02104-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 04-29-2008 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Personal injury - Jury selection - Admission of evidence - M.R.E. 1006 - Damages Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-27-2006 Appealed from: Alcorn County Circuit Court Judge: Paul S. Funderburk Disposition: JURY VERDICT AND $50,000 DAMAGES FOR AUTO ACCIDENT VICTIM Case Number: CV03-018R-A |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | C. RICHARD DOBBINS |
PHIL R. HINTON |
||
| Appellee: | FREDRICK J. VANN, III | ROBERT GLENN KROHN |
|
|
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 - Jury selection - Admission of evidence - M.R.E. 1006 - Damages |
| Summary of the Facts: | C. Richard Dobbins sued Fredrick J. Vann, III for injuries and damages sustained from an automobile accident. A jury verdict was returned in favor of Dobbins for $50,000. Dobbins appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Jury selection During voir dire, Dobbins’s attorney asked, “if any of you have been insured by one of these Vanns or one of the agencies.” The trial court sustained the objection and instructed Dobbins’s counsel to ask the more general question, if anyone had done “any type of business with the Vanns.” Dobbins argues that he was denied the right to a meaningful voir dire which would have enabled him to better decide which jurors might be challenged for cause or might be challenged peremptorily. Counsel is not free from limits during voir dire. The attorney must confine questions to those necessary to qualify the jury under the facts of the particular case. Although Dobbins was not allowed to use the term “insurance,” the trial court did allow him to inquire into whether any of the prospective jurors had any business relationship with the Vann family. Dobbins was allowed sufficient inquiry into the matter and has not shown that he was prejudiced by the lack of further questioning. Issue 2: Admission of evidence During the trial, Dobbins attempted to admit a summary of entries from his business time book into evidence, and Vann objected. Dobbins argues that the trial court erred by refusing to accept the summary of the time book entries into evidence, because the time book could not be conveniently examined in court as it covered four years of daily appointments and contained confidential client information. Summaries of voluminous evidence are admissible under M.R.E. 1006, according to the trial court’s discretion. Here, the summary listed dates that Dobbins was out of the office for doctor visits. There is no indication that Dobbins suffered any prejudice from this decision. Although the summary was not admitted into evidence, Dobbins’s medical records were admitted and these items also detailed the times he missed work for doctor visits. Issue 3: Damages Dobbins argues that a jury verdict of $50,000 was contrary to the substantial weight of the evidence and a new trial as to damages should have been granted or an additur made. The party seeking the additur bears the burden of proving his injuries, loss of income, and other damages. Dobbins introduced evidence of damages totaling approximately $200,000, which included the following: medical expenses, lost income, mileage to and from doctor visits, overnight motel stays related to doctor visits, meals away from home, maid services, stable fees for his horses, future lost income, future knee replacement, and future physical therapy sessions. Vann did not object to the reasonableness or necessity of the incurred medical expenses of $38,627.85; however, he did object to causation. In regard to future physical therapy, Vann objected to this figure as being speculative. Vann also put forth evidence that questioned Dobbins’s credibility. Attention was also directed to the lapse of time between the accident and subsequent doctor visits. Ultimately, it was up to the jury to determine the credibility of this evidence, and there is substantial evidence in the record to support the jury’s verdict. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, it, therefore, is determined that the jury’s award of $50,000 in damages was not contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
