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

defendantdamagesnegligenceverdictsustainedappellantappellee
damagesappealverdictappellant

Related Cases

Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 103 S.Ct. 1625, 75 L.Ed.2d 632
View Case »
Drouhard-Nordhus v. Rosenquist, 301 Kan. 618, 345 P.3d 281
View Case »
McNaughton v. Charleston Charter School for Math and Science, Inc., 411 S.C. 249, 768 S.E.2d 389, 165 Lab.Cas. P 61,560, 314 Ed. Law Rep. 560, 39 IER Cases 1278
View Case »
Metro-North Commuter R. Co. v. Buckley, 521 U.S. 424, 117 S.Ct. 2113, 138 L.Ed.2d 560, 1997 A.M.C. 2309, 65 USLW 4586, 12 IER Cases 1645, 17 O.S.H. Cas. (BNA) 2153, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4806, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7833, 97 CJ C.A.R. 1016, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 56
View Case »
Polish American Machinery Corp. v. R.D. & D. Corp., 760 F.2d 507
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Parrott v. Mallett, 262 Ark. 525, 558 S.W.2d 152

Facts

James Parrott brought an action for himself and as guardian of his minor son, Jarrott, for injuries sustained by Jarrott in an automobile collision. The jury found that the defendant was negligent and that this negligence was the sole cause of Jarrott's injury. Despite this finding, the jury awarded James $700 but determined that Jarrott was entitled to no damages. Jarrott testified about his injuries, including headaches and back pain, but also indicated that he had not incurred any medical expenses or lost wages due to the accident.

Jarrott Parrott testified that he blacked out at the time of the collision and when he regained consciousness, he was dizzy, his back was hurting and he had a knot on his head, but he did not figure there was much wrong with him on account of the wreck.

Issue

Did the jury err in finding that Jarrott Parrott was entitled to no damages despite the finding of negligence?

The basis of all the relief sought on appeal is the alleged error in the failure of the jury to award damages to Jarrott Parrott.

Rule

In cases of injury to a minor child, there are two distinct causes of action: one for the child’s injuries and one for the parent’s losses. A minor child cannot recover for medical expenses unless they have incurred and paid those expenses.

We have long recognized that, in case of injury to a minor child, there are two separate and distinct causes of action: one in favor of the infant for his injuries and one in favor of the parent for losses suffered by the parent.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented and found that Jarrott did not prove any pecuniary damages. Although the jury acknowledged the defendant's negligence, they concluded that Jarrott had not shown any financial loss, as he had not paid for medical expenses or lost wages due to his injuries. The court emphasized that the burden was on the appellant to demonstrate that Jarrott suffered measurable damages.

The jury could have found and apparently did find that appellant had not shown that Jarrott suffered pecuniary damage.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the jury's verdict, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support the finding that Jarrott was not entitled to recover any damages.

Since Jarrott Parrott showed no right to recover any pecuniary damages which were subject to accurate measurement, and since we cannot say that there was no substantial evidence to support the jury verdict that he was not entitled to recover any damages, the judgment is affirmed.

Who won?

The appellee prevailed in the case because the jury found that Jarrott did not demonstrate any pecuniary damages resulting from the accident.

The jury could have found and apparently did find that appellant had not shown that Jarrott suffered pecuniary damage.

You must be