Opinion
No. 3-283 / 02-0852
Filed August 13, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court forWoodbury County, Duane Hoffmeyer, Judge.
Nicholas Mech appeals from a district court order granting a partial new trial in his action for damages allegedly suffered in a car/bicycle crash. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
William G. Deck of Deck Deck, L.L.P., Sioux City, for appellant.
Kathleen Roe and Michael R. Hellige of Hellige, Meis, Erickson Frey, Sioux City, for appellees.
Heard by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Nicholas Mech appeals from a district court order granting a partial new trial in his action for damages allegedly suffered in a car/bicycle crash. He claims: (1) a new trial should have been awarded on all issues; (2) the jury's finding of fault is not supported by substantial evidence; and (3) certain jury instructions were improper. We reverse and remand for a new trial on all issues.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
On June 10, 1992, Mech, who was then eight years old, was riding his bicycle in an alley behind his house. At the same time, Heidi Jo Higgins, now Heidi Jo Stanfield, was driving her mother's car in an alley. These two alleys made a T intersection. Near the intersection, the bicycle and car collided. Mech was thrown from the bicycle and his head hit the car's windshield. Mech suffered a laceration on his head.
Mech filed suit on February 11, 2000, against Stanfield and her mother, claiming that in addition to the laceration he received a closed-head injury in the accident which resulted in past and future medical expenses, pain, suffering, loss of full body, and loss of wages. The jury returned a verdict finding Mech and defendants each fifty percent at fault. The jury, however, did not award Mech any damages, entering $0 in each damage category.
Mech filed a motion for a new trial, claiming the jury's verdict was inconsistent and the award of damages was inadequate. The district court granted a new trial solely on the issues of past pain, suffering, and loss of full body. The court noted the parties did not dispute that Mech had sustained a laceration and had suffered as a result. On the other hand, the issue of the closed-head injury was hotly contested, and the court concluded the failure to award anything for future medical expenses, pain, suffering, loss of full body, and past and future wages was not legally inconsistent. The court determined there was no need for a new trial on the issue of liability. The court ordered that defendants could avoid a new trial by paying a judgment of $3750. Defendants accepted this additur, but Mech filed a notice of appeal.
II. New Trial
Mech claims the district court abused its discretion by granting only a partial new trial. He asserts the jury's verdict was inconsistent and a new trial should be granted on all the issues in the case. He points out that the jury's verdict that defendants were fifty percent at fault is inconsistent with the award of no damages, when it was undisputed that he suffered some damages as a result of the accident.
Our scope of review of a district court's ruling on a motion for new trial depends on the grounds raised in the motion. Roling v. Daily, 596 N.W.2d 72, 76 (Iowa 1999). To the extent the motion is based on a discretionary ground, we review it for an abuse of discretion. Channon v. United Parcel Serv., 629 N.W.2d 835, 859 (Iowa 2001). But if the motion is based on legal grounds, our review is on error. Id.
"A new trial may be granted, and the jury verdict set aside, when the verdict is so logically and legally inconsistent it is irreconcilable in the context of the case." Kalvik ex rel. Kalvik v. Seidl, 595 N.W.2d 136, 139 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999). We consider whether the verdict can be reconciled in any reasonable manner consistent with the evidence, its fair inferences, and in light of the instructions of the court. Holdsworth v. Nissly, 520 N.W.2d 332, 337 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). Where verdicts are clearly inconsistent and there is no way to determine which verdict is inconsistent with the jury's intent, the proper remedy is a new trial. Hoffman v. National Med. Enters., Inc., 442 N.W.2d 123, 127 (Iowa 1989). Here, the jury verdicts were inconsistent, there is no means of determining which verdict is inconsistent with the jury's intent, and therefore, a new trial is needed.
As a general rule, new trials will be granted as to the whole case and on all of the issues, and seldom on the issue of damages only, except where liability of a defendant is definitely established. Householder v. Town of Clayton, 221 N.W.2d 488, 493 (Iowa 1974). When it appears that an award of inadequate damages is the result of a jury compromise on the issue of liability, then a new trial should be granted on all issues. Id. (citing 66 C.J.S. New Trial § 14(d), at 89-90 (1998)). We may infer a compromise on the issue of liability if there was a conflict of evidence as to the issue of liability and the jury's verdict bears no relationship to the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. Id. at 494; Yoch v. City of Cedar Rapids, 353 N.W.2d 95, 100 (Iowa Ct.App. 1984).
If there is no evidence that the jury's determination of fault was compromised by the evidence of damages, the issue of liability should not be retried. Thompson v. Allen, 503 N.W.2d 400, 401 (Iowa 1993). Specific issues may be retried, instead of a new trial on all issues, if "it appears that the other issues have been rightly settled and that an injustice will not be occasioned." Brant v. Bockholt, 532 N.W.2d 801, 805 (Iowa 1995); see also Fisher v. Davis, 601 N.W.2d 54, 60 (Iowa 1999) (holding new trial on damages only was justified because liability was not an issue).
We determine the inconsistent verdicts in this case were the result of jury compromise on the issue of liability. There was a conflict of evidence in the record concerning fault. See Householder, 221 N.W.2d at 494. Unlike Fisher, there has been no concession of liability in this case. Fisher, 601 N.W.2d at 60. Furthermore, the jury's verdict bore no relationship to the injuries sustained by Mech. See Householder, 221 N.W.2d at 494. There was no dispute that Mech received injuries as a result of the accident, and had medical treatment, and pain and suffering. The jury's award of no damages was not supported by the evidence. We conclude Mech is entitled to a new trial on all the issues in the case.
III. Verdict on Liability
Because we have determined Mech is entitled to a new trial on all issues, including liability, we do not address his claim on appeal that the jury's verdict on liability was not supported by the evidence.
IV. Jury Instructions
Because some issues regarding the jury instructions may arise on retrial, we will briefly consider Mech's complaints regarding the instructions. Our standard of review concerning alleged error with regard to jury instructions is for correction of errors at law. Iowa R.App.P. 6.4; Duncan v. City of Cedar Rapids, 560 N.W.2d 320, 325 (Iowa 1997). We review jury instructions to decide if they are a correct statement of the law and are substantially supported by the evidence. Bride v. Heckart, 556 N.W.2d 449, 452 (Iowa 1996). Error in giving or refusing to give a particular instruction does not warrant reversal unless the error is prejudicial to the party. Sonnek v. Warren, 522 N.W.2d 45, 47 (Iowa 1994).
The jury was instructed:
The defendants claim that the plaintiff was at fault in one or more of the following particulars:
(a) Failure to keep a proper lookout;
(b) Failure to have his vehicle under control;
(c) Failure to yield the right-of-way to the defendant Heidi Higgins at the intersection.
A separate jury instruction was also given explaining each of these specifications of negligence. Mech claims these instructions were improper because they were not supported by substantial evidence.
A bicyclist is subject to the rules of the road and has all the rights and duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle. Iowa Code § 321.234(2) (1999); Vasconez v. Mills, 651 N.W.2d 48, 52-53 (Iowa 2002). An instruction on proper lookout should be submitted only if there is evidence the accident resulted from a bicyclist's failure to keep a proper lookout or otherwise avoid forseeable harm. Vasconez, 651 N.W.2d at 52. An instruction regarding failure to maintain control should be given if there is evidence a bicyclist failed to proceed with such care and with the bicycle "under such control as existing conditions known or which should be known may require." Diehl v. Diehl, 421 N.W.2d 884, 887 (Iowa 1988). On retrial, these instructions should be given only if there is substantial evidence to support them.
Mech also claims the right-of-way instruction was not applicable because he was making a right-hand turn, and never entered Stanfield's right-of-way. Section 321.297(1)(b) requires all vehicles to be driven only on the right half of the roadway unless an obstruction makes it necessary to drive left of center. Meyer v. City of Des Moines, 475 N.W.2d 181, 185 (Iowa 1991). There was no evidence of an obstruction in this case so the law would assume Mech should stay in the right half of the roadway. On remand, an instruction on failure to yield the right-of-way should be given only if there is evidence Mech failed to stay in the right half of the roadway.
We reverse the decision of the district court and remand for a new trial on all issues. Costs of this appeal are assessed to defendants.