Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 186994; Unpublished
Judges Markman, McDonald, and Matuzak; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Trial Procedure Issues [§3135]
General / Miscellaneous [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the amount of damages awarded for plaintiffs back injury arising from a motor vehicle accident was inadequate because it did not award any damages for future pain and suffering, even though the evidence was uncontroverted that plaintiff would probably suffer back pain for the rest of his life, and would also suffer from temporomandibular joint (TMJ) syndrome, involving serious facial pains. Because the jury's verdict of no damages for plaintiffs future pain and suffering was inadequate, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied plaintiffs motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, additur.
This is the second time that this matter was before the Court of Appeals. In the first decision (Item No. 1704), the Court of Appeals reversed a jury verdict of no cause of action involving plaintiffs claim for back injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident. Defendants had admitted negligence in the first trial, but contested whether or not the automobile accident was a proximate cause of plaintiff s pain. The Court of Appeals in the first opinion held that the trial court abused his discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial, because the verdict of no cause for action was contrary to the great weight of the evidence.
On retrial, the jury entered a verdict of $7,500 plus interest for plaintiffs injuries. The jury found that plaintiff suffered a serious impairment of body function which the Court of Appeals noted was supported by testimony from both plaintiffs expert and defendants' expert Additionally, both experts testified that defendants' negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries. Further, the court noted that there was expert testimony uncontroverted that plaintiff would probably suffer future back pain and TMJ related pain.
The Court of Appeals, in reversing the award of the jury which did not include any damages for future pain and suffering, held that when a jury ignores uncontroverted damages, the verdict is inadequate. This matter was reversed and remanded for a determination of additur by the trial court or, in the alternative, a new trial on the issue of damages only.
