MEGAN ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
vs. Case No. 00C 1349
LAURA DONNELLY,
Defendant.
Defendant filed a motion to reconsider the order for a new trial. Defendant requests that if a new trial is conducted that it be conducted on the issue of future damages only. In the alternative, the defendant requests the court reconsider whether the entire verdict was an inconsistent verdict.
Plaintiff has filed a response to defendant's motion to reconsider and the time for any replies has expired. Therefore, this court deems the motion to reconsider ready for ruling.
Plaintiff makes three separate arguments, the first of which was that any re-trial should be limited to the issue of future damages only. Quite frankly, the court initially had intended to retry the case on the issue of future damages only. However, considering the logistical difficulties in presenting a case on future damages only, a trial an all damages (both present and future) appeared to this court to be the better choice. In addition, the Kansas Supreme Court ordered a new trial on the issue of damages, both present and future, in both of the cases cited by plaintiff as support for her argument that the jury award was contrary to the evidence because the verdict included medical expenses but no noneconomic damages. Germann v. Blatchford, 246 Kan. 532, 792 P.2d 1059 (1990); Miller v. Zep. Mfg. Co., 249 Kan. 34, 815 P.2d 506 (1991). Particularly, in Germann, the Court could have ordered a new trial only on present damages, but the Court did not bifurcate the damage issues.
Defendant next argues that in the alternative, the court should reconsider its entire order as the jury's verdict was not contrary to the evidence. Defendant cites the case Manildra Mill Corp. v. Ogilvie Mills, Inc., 797 F. Supp. 874 (D. Kan. 1992) in which the Court stated, "[w]hen confronted with an apparently inconsistent verdict, the Court is to search for a reasonable way to read the verdicts as expressing a coherent view of the case, and must exhaust this effort before it is free to disregard the jury's verdict and grant a new trial." This court has tried to find a reasonable way to read the verdict but the jury's award of future medical was based on uncontroverted evidence that the plaintiff has suffered a closed-head injury and was in need of future treatment. The jury found that the plaintiff needed cognitive rehabilitation. If plaintiff needed cognitive rehabilitation, she has a continuing injury and she is entitled to some measure of damages.
Finally, defendant argues that because the plaintiff failed to object at trial to an inconsistent verdict, she is barred from raising the issue after trial. Unfortunately, this court did not give plaintiff an opportunity to object before the jury was discharged. The verdict was read and immediately thereafter the jury was discharged.
Secondly, plaintiff argues and this court concurs that this case can be distinguished from the Manildra Mill case in that the alleged "inconsistencies" in the Manildra Mill case were inconsistencies between two or more of the jury's answers to interrogatories and in this case the inconsistency was with the evidence. The rule of law set forth in Manildra Mill is not applicable to the facts of this case.
This court, therefore, denies defendant's motion to reconsider. The above constitutes the court's ruling on the motion to reconsider and no further journal entry is required.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this day of February, 2002.
_______________
Nancy Parrish
District Judge, Third Judicial District
Division Fourteen
I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER was mailed this 11th day of February , 2002, to the following:
Gary E. Laughlin
Capitol Federal Building
700 Kansas Ave., Suite 714
Topeka, Kansas 66603
Jennifer R. Rose
1650 NE Grand Ave., Suite 200
Lees Summit, Missouri 64086
Richard F. Modin
Wayne E. Smith
10100 Ambassador Dr., Suite 220
Kansas City, Missouri 64153
_________________
Norma J. Dunnaway
Administrative Assistant