Opinion
No. 4-567 / 03-1538.
August 26, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Carroll County, Gary L. McMinimee, Judge.
Plaintiff appeals the district court's denial of a motion seeking an additur or in the alternative, a new trial. AFFIRMED.
Warren Bush, Wall Lake, for appellant.
Janice Thomas, Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Zimmer, JJ.
Plaintiff-appellant Rebecca M. Shumate was injured when the automobile in which she was riding was hit by an automobile driven by Ryan Schweers. Plaintiff sued Schweers, and later, upon learning Schweers had liability coverage for only $25,000, amended her petition to include defendant-appellee, Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Company, which provided underinsured motorist coverage on the car in which plaintiff was riding. Plaintiff ultimately settled with Schweers for the limits of his policy and proceeded with her claim against appellee here. The case was tried to a jury which initially awarded plaintiff $3,700 for past medical expenses and $500 for lost wages. The district court sent the jury back with a supplemental instruction that "where there is an award for past medical expenses there must also be an award for past pain and suffering in some amount." The jury returned with an additional award of $500 for plaintiff's past pain and suffering. Plaintiff, claiming the award did not adequately cover her damages, filed a motion seeking an additur or in the alternative a new trial. Both motions were overruled by the district court.
For plaintiff to have recovered underinsured benefits the jury would have had to return a verdict in excess of $25,000.
Plaintiff first contends she should have an additur because the damage award was not sufficient. The defendant contends this is not an available remedy, that the proper method of challenging the inadequacy of damages is through a motion for new trial, and the damage award was adequate. In a jury case damages are usually a jury function not a court function. In denying the additur the district court correctly recognized its function in this case, for to have awarded an additur, it would have in fact fixed damages. We affirm on this issue.
Plaintiff next contends the district court erred in refusing to grant her a new trial because the damages awarded were inadequate.
An inadequate damage award merits a new trial as much as an excessive one. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1004; Foggia v. Des Moines Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 543 N.W.2d 889, 891 (Iowa 1996); Matthess v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 521 N.W.2d 699, 702 (Iowa 1994); Witte v. Vogt, 443 N.W.2d 715, 716. (Iowa 1989). Whether damages awarded are adequate in a particular case depends on the facts of the situation. Foggia, 543 N.W.2d at 891. The test is whether the verdict fairly and reasonably compensates for the injury the party sustained. Id.; see also Householder v. Town of Clayton, 221 N.W.2d 488, 493 (Iowa 1974). Though evidence presented at trial may justify a higher damage award, this alone does not control. Foggia, 543 N.W.2d at 891. The key question is whether after examining the record, "giving the jury its right to accept or reject whatever portions of the conflicting evidence it chose, the verdict effects substantial justice between the parties." Kautman v. Mar-Mac Cmty. Sch. Dist., 255 N.W.2d 146, 148 (Iowa 1977); see also Moore v. Bailey, 163 N.W.2d 435, 437 (Iowa 1968). Another consideration for this court in examining the trial court's determination is "the fact the trial court, with benefit of seeing and hearing witnesses, observing the jury and having before it all incidents of the trial, did not see fit to interfere [with the jury's verdict]." Olsen v. Drahos, 229 N.W.2d 741, 743 (Iowa 1975).
The district court in denying plaintiff a new trial said:
The Plaintiff presented evidence of loss of wages and loss of income that was significantly more than that awarded by the jury. However, the Plaintiff's credibility was placed in issue and the doctors' opinions regarding causality of the various elements of the claimed damages were largely based upon what the Plaintiff told them. Several of the doctors indicated that the Plaintiff's injuries could have been caused by trauma other than the automobile collision. This court cannot say based upon the evidence presented that the verdict failed to do substantial justice between the parties.
Our review of the record causes us to agree with the finding of the district court. We affirm its denial of a motion for new trial.
AFFIRMED.