Preview:

Present:  All the Justices

MICHAEL J. WALKER

v.  Record No. 980345     OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY
   January 8, 1999
DEWAYNE K. MASON

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Randall G. Johnson, Judge


TAMARA S. WILLIAMS

v.  Record No. 980568

SHONA R. SIMMONS

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT THE CITY OF RICHMOND
Walter W. Stout, III, Judge


DEVEATA ANITA WALKER

v.  Record No. 980254

JACK CREASY

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF AMHERST COUNTY
J. Michael Gamble, Judge

The three appeals addressed in this opinion involve the proper application of principles for determining whether a jury verdict is inadequate as a matter of law.  The trial court in each of these cases set aside the jury verdict relying on the principle enunciated in Bowers v. Sprouse, 254 Va. 428, 492 S.E.2d 637 (1997).
In Bowers, the jury returned a verdict in the exact amount of the special damages introduced by the plaintiff.  The Court in Bowers reversed the trial court's denial of plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict, stating that "a jury award in a personal injury action which compensates a plaintiff for the exact amount of the plaintiff's medical expenses and other special damages is inadequate as a matter of law, irrespective of whether those damages were controverted."  Id. at 431, 492 S.E.2d at 639.  The basis of this rule is that a verdict for the exact amount of the plaintiff's medical expenses and special damages indicates that although the jury found the plaintiff was injured and had incurred special damages, the jury, for whatever reason, failed to compensate the plaintiff for any other items of damage.  Id., 492 S.E.2d at 638.
This bright line rule is limited, however, to those factual situations in which the jury verdict is identical to the full amount of the special damages.  The rationale underlying the rule does not extend to an award which deviates from the amount of all the special damages claimed, even if the amount of the verdict corresponds to an identifiable portion of the special damages.  In such case, the bright line rule of Bowers cannot be applied.  
I.  Walker v. Mason, Record No. 980345
In Walker v. Mason, the plaintiff claimed special damages of $4,431. The jury returned a verdict in the amount of $230, an amount equal to the amount of the hospital emergency room bill.  The trial court set the verdict aside, concluding that, even though the verdict was not in the exact amount of all the special damages presented, the verdict was in the exact amount of a portion of the special damages, and that, under Bowers, "you just cannot have a verdict for the amount of specials."  The trial court, applying the additur statute, Code

Download 1980345.pdf

Virginia Law