Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 04/09/96 OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 94-CA-00278 COA PAMELA WILLIAMSON WALKER APPELLANT v. W.L. TURNER TRUCKING, INC. APPELLEE

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED, PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-B

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOHN LESLIE HATCHER COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: COAHOMA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: RALPH E. CHAPMAN DANA J. SWAN ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: WILLIAM O. LUCKETT, JR. N.J. MCMULLEN, JR. NATURE OF THE CASE: PERSONAL INJURY-AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: JURY VERDICT IN THE AMOUNT OF $80.00 AWARDED IN FAVOR OF PAMELA WILLIAMSON WALKER

BEFORE THOMAS, P.J., COLEMAN, AND McMILLIN, JJ.

McMILLIN, J., FOR THE COURT: In this case, Pamela Williamson Walker appeals the jury verdict and resulting judgment awarding her damages in the amount of $80.00 covering certain medical bills incurred as a result of injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Walker argues that, based on a review of the evidence, the jury verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and was the result of bias, passion, or prejudice. Walker also asserts error in the trial court's ruling on certain evidentiary matters. After a review of the testimony presented at trial, we are unconvinced that the jury's verdict is so low as to evidence bias, passion, or prejudice against Walker. We further find that the trial court's evidentiary ruling in question was not so prejudicial as to rise to the level of reversible error. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the lower court. I. FACTS

On May 16, 1989, Pamela Williamson Walker was involved in an accident with Tommie James Owten, a driver for W.L. Turner Trucking, Inc. Walker, who was traveling in Coahoma County on Highway 61, stopped at a yield sign at the intersection of Highway 61 and Highway 6 before entering Highway 6. At that time, Walker's Dodge van was struck from the rear by an eighteen-wheel vehicle driven by Owten. The jury was presented with conflicting testimony as to the fault of the drivers involved in the accident and the extent of injuries sustained. Walker testified that she had stopped at the yield sign to allow a blue truck to clear the intersection, and that she did not see Owten until she was hit from the rear. Owten, however, testified that not only were there no cars in the vicinity of the intersection but that Walker stopped, proceeded slowly, and then suddenly stopped again, forcing him to suddenly slam on the brakes and ultimately rear-end her van. Officer Bradford Terry, the investigating officer, testified that Walker was issued no citation, and Owten was cited for failure to yield and listed the accident as minor with no injuries. Although Walker did not initially note any injury at the scene, she testified that approximately six days after the accident, she sought medical attention for stiffness, headaches, and blurred vision. She was treated by Dr. Warrington, her local physician, for the pain, and referred to Dr. Pang, a physician in Clarksdale, for the vision problems. The medical bills for these treatments totaled $80.00. After a period of six months from the accident and after Walker had retained an attorney to represent her in regard to the accident, she began a course of seeking medical advice and psychological attention from various doctors recommended by friends and counsel. This pattern continued for the three years leading up to trial. The jury returned with a unanimous verdict awarding Walker $80.00. Walker filed a motion for additur, or in the alternative, a new trial which was denied by the trial court. Walker thereupon filed this appeal. II.

THE JURY VERDICT

Walker takes issue with the lower court's denial of additur and motion for new trial. Walker specifically argues that the jury verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Walker contends that the jury's failure to award damages in the total amount of medical bills submitted is the result of bias, passion, and prejudice. This Court is bound by a well-settled standard when reviewing a motion for new trial in the lower court. The trial judge is given wide latitude and discretion in the grant or denial of a motion for new trial. Moody v. RPM Pizza, Inc., 659 So. 2d 877, 881 (Miss. 1995). The trial judge should grant a motion for new trial only if the credible evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, would result in a miscarriage of justice if allowed to stand. Id. This Court will reverse only for an abuse of that discretion. Id. In order to alter a jury award by additur, the trial court must find either (1) that the jury verdict is so shocking to the conscience that it is the product of bias, passion, and prejudice or (2) the verdict is contrary to the overwhelming weight of credible evidence. See Miss. Code Ann.

Download Pamela Williamson Walker vs. W. L. Turner Trucking, Inc..pdf

Mississippi Law