Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantdamagesliabilityappealtrialverdictobjectionappellant
defendantdamagesappealappellantappellee

Related Cases

Arnold v. State, 309 S.C. 157, 420 S.E.2d 834
View Case »
Gilbert Wheeler, Inc. v. Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas), L.P., 449 S.W.3d 474, 57 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1465
View Case »
Quintana v. Gates, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 1661540
View Case »
Livingston v. Krown Chemical Mfg., Inc., 394 Mich. 144, 229 N.W.2d 793
View Case »
Carroll v. Blinken, 105 F.3d 79, 116 Ed. Law Rep. 878
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Hewett v. Frye, 184 W.Va. 477, 401 S.E.2d 222

Facts

On July 27, 1984, Charles Hewett was injured when his vehicle was struck by an automobile driven by Curtis Frye, who was fatally injured in the collision. Hewett filed a civil action against Carole Frye Moats, the administratrix of Curtis Frye's estate, with liability admitted. The trial focused on damages, and the jury awarded Hewett $25,012.93, which totaled $29,548.60 with prejudgment interest. The appellant contended that the jury's award was inadequate as it did not cover all proved damages, including mental anguish.

The appellant was injured on July 27, 1984, when the automobile he was operating was struck by an automobile driven by Curtis Frye. Mr. Frye, who was the son of the appellee Carole Frye Moats, was fatally injured in the collision.

Issue

Did the trial court err in refusing to grant a new trial based on the inadequacy of the jury's damage award and in sustaining objections to the plaintiff's closing arguments?

The appellant contends that the following excerpts of appellee's counsel's closing argument led the jury to believe that Mrs. Moats was personally responsible for the debts of her son: Now, let's review what injuries, treatments and costs Mrs. Moats told you in the beginning were caused by the accident, she did not dispute, she still does not dispute and she feels she should pay Mr. Hewett.

Rule

In an appeal from an allegedly inadequate damage award, the evidence concerning damages is viewed most strongly in favor of the defendant. A jury's award must include elements of damage proved in uncontroverted amounts and a substantial amount as compensation for injuries and pain and suffering.

In an appeal from an allegedly inadequate damage award, the evidence concerning damages is to be viewed most strongly in favor of the defendant. Syl. Pt. 1, Kaiser v. Hensley, 173 W.Va. 548, 318 S.E.2d 598 (1983).

Analysis

The court applied the rule by examining the jury's award in light of the evidence presented. The jury's verdict closely approximated the uncontroverted medical damages, and the court found no reversible error in the trial court's refusal to grant a new trial. The court also noted that the jury's award for pain and suffering was within their discretion and did not find a causal link between the appellant's mental anguish and the accident.

The jury in the present case awarded $5,000.00 to the appellant for pain and suffering. Viewed most strongly in favor of the appellee, the evidence permits a conclusion by the jury that the appellant's psychological and mental disturbances were not causally related to the accident.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County, concluding that the jury's damage award was not inadequate and that the trial court did not err in its rulings.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County is affirmed.

Who won?

Carole Frye Moats prevailed in the case as the court affirmed the jury's verdict and found no error in the trial court's decisions.

The appellant contends that the following excerpts of appellee's counsel's closing argument led the jury to believe that Mrs. Moats was personally responsible for the debts of her son.

You must be