Downs v. Ackerman
| Docket Number: | 2011-CA-00089-COA Linked Case(s): 2011-CA-00089-COA ; 2011-CT-00089-SCT ; 2011-CT-00089-SCT |
|
| 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 - Section 41-9-119 - Weight of evidence - Damages Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Ishee, Maxwell, Russell and Fair, JJ. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J. Concur in Part, Concur in Result 1: Barnes, J., Concurs in Part and in the Result Without Separate Written Opinion Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Barnes, J., Concurs in Part and in the Result Without Separate Written Opinion Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - PERSONAL INJURY |
|
| 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: | This judgment was later reversed and the trial court affirmed by the Supreme Court on 6/20/2012. See SCT opinion at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO85089.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 - Section 41-9-119 - Weight of evidence - Damages |
| Summary of the Facts: | Honda Downs and Dr. Peter Ackerman were involved in a car accident when Ackerman’s Lexus automobile struck the rear of Downs’s Oldsmobile automobile. Downs suffered injuries as a result of the accident, and she later filed suit against Ackerman for damages arising out of the accident. Ackerman admitted liability for the accident several times throughout the course of the trial. The jury awarded Downs $20,000 in damages, which were less than the medical bills she presented into evidence as reasonable and necessary medical expenses. Downs filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a motion for a new trial, and, alternatively, a motion for an additur. The circuit judge denied these motions. Downs appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Downs argues that the circuit court erred in failing to grant her motion for an additur because the jury’s verdict of $20,000 did not adequately compensate her for her medical bills, lost wages, future medical treatments, or pain and suffering. Section 41-9-119 states that “[p]roof that medical, hospital, and doctor bills were paid or incurred because of any illness, disease, or injury shall be prima facie evidence that such bills so paid or incurred were necessary and reasonable.” An opposing party may, if desired, rebut the necessity and reasonableness of the bills by proper evidence. At trial and without objection, Downs produced her medical bills totaling $20,800.30. She also provided testimony through Dr. Smith that the medical bills presented were necessary and reasonable for the treatment of her injuries and symptoms. Further, both Dr. Millette and Dr. McCloskey testified that the accident was the cause of Downs’s injuries because she had never complained of the symptoms prior to the accident. Ackerman relied solely on his attempts to impeach the expert witnesses when making his case to rebut the prima facie evidence presented; his evidence was insufficient to rebut that Down’s medical bills were reasonable and necessary to treat her injuries proximately caused by the accident. Also, there is evidence of juror confusion in this case when the jury asked multiple questions during its deliberations regarding what amount of money insurance provided for Downs’s medical bills and how much was out-of-pocket expenses. Thus, the jury’s verdict in favor of Downs for only $20,000 is against the overwhelming weight of the credible evidence and does not adequately compensate her for all of her claimed damages. Thus, the case is reversed and remanded for the circuit judge to grant an appropriate, suggested additur. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
