Personal Injury Law

MILLER, J.

Plaintiffs Teri Phelan-Ruden in her capacity as the executor of the estate of Jerrica Anne Hilleman-Ruden, and Phelan-Ruden and Jeff Ruden individually, appeal from the district court's denial of their motion for additur or a new trial. Upon our review for the correction of errors at law, Iowa R. App. P. 6.4, we affirm the district court.

Jerrica Hilleman-Ruden is the daughter of Teri Phelan-Ruden and Jeff Ruden. When she was eleven years old, Jerrica was killed in a skiing accident while on a weekend trip with her friend Jordan, Jordan's mother Marla Suddreth, and Suddreth's companion (now husband) Craig McCoid. Phelan-Ruden, as Jerrica's executor, and Phelan-Ruden and Ruden in their individual capacities, filed a wrongful death action against Suddreth and McCoid. As executor, Phelan-Ruden sought damages for loss to the estate, and Phelan-Ruden and Ruden sought damages, individually, for loss of consortium.

Following trial a jury found Suddreth to be 100% at fault for the plaintiffs' damages. The jury awarded the plaintiffs $10,545 in interest on burial expenses and $2,433.95 in medical expenses, but did not award any damages for present value of Jerrica's estate or for past or future loss of services to Phelan-Ruden or Ruden. The plaintiffs filed a motion pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1004, seeking additur or, alternatively, a new trial on the issue of damages. They asserted, in relevant part, that awarding damages for full burial and medical expenses but failing to award any damages for present value of the estate or loss of consortium demonstrated that the verdict was inadequate, influenced by passion or prejudice, not sustained by sufficient evidence, contrary to law, and inconsistent. The district court denied the request for additur or a new trial. This appeal followed.

On appeal, the plaintiffs assert the damages awarded by the jury are inadequate, are inconsistent, are a product of jury nullification, and fail to award the minimum value for a life set forth in Iowa Code section 910.3B (2003). They assert this matter should be remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages only, but that if we order a new trial on all issues we should consider additional jury instruction and evidentiary claims. Finally, they assert the district court erred when it refused to submit a jury instruction on pre-death pain and suffering.

. The district court may grant a new trial if the substantial rights of the moving party have been materially affected because the jury's verdict is not supported by sufficient evidence, is contrary to law, or makes an inadequate damage award that appears to have been the result of passion or prejudice. Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1004(4), (6). A court must not "disturb a jury verdict for damages unless it is ‘flagrantly excessive or inadequate, so out of reason so as to shock the conscience, the result of passion or prejudice, or lacking in evidentiary support.' " Kuta v. Newberg, 600 N.W.2d 280, 284 (Iowa 1999) (citations omitted). The district court has broad discretion to determine if the verdict effectuates substantial justice between the parties. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(c). We accordingly review its denial of the plaintiffs' motion for an abuse of discretion.

.Vaughan v. Must, Inc, 542 N.W.2d 533, 542 (Iowa 1996).

....

Accordingly, I would reverse and remand for a new trial limited to the issue of damages.

AND

Steve Lombardi | December 09, 2007 12:00 AM | Des Moines, IA

A Polk County jury awards nothing to the parents for love and companionship when their daughter is killed. Some people justify it by saying money won't bring her back. Heck, if I shot a deer out of season the Iowa DNR would get $20,000.00. The State of Iowa would get more for a frog killed out of season than my clients were awarded for the investment of their time, energy, love and money in the...