Donald M. Smith v. Cynthia A. Miller

• Decision Date: 17 November 1993
• Docket Number: 13-93-16,93-LW-4439
• Parties: DONALD M. SMITH, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT AND MARLENE M. SMITH, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLEE v. CYNTHIA A. MILLER, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE CASE NUMBER 13-93-16
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

DONALD M. SMITH PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT AND MARLENE M. SMITH, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLEE v. CYNTHIA A. MILLER DEFENDANT-APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE

No. 13-93-16

93-LW-4439 (3rd)

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District Seneca

November 17, 1993

Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court.

MESSRS MANHAN, PIERTRYKOWSKI, BAMMAN & DELANEY, Mr. Gerald R. Kowalski, Attorney at Law, Reg. #0022323, 414 North Erie Street, P.O. Box 2328, Toledo, OH 43624, For Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

THE BOLOTIN LAW OFFICES, Mr. Samuel G. Bolotin, Attorney at Law, Reg. #0014727, 4349 Talmadge Road, Toledo, OH 43623-3565, For Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

OPINION

HADLEY J.

Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, Cynthia Miller ("Miller"), appeals from judgment entries entered by the Seneca County Court of Common Pleas, from a claim arising out of an automobile accident between Miller and Plaintiffs-Appellees and Cross-Appellants, Donald and Marylene Smith ("Smiths").

In September 1991, the Smiths filed a complaint against Miller. The facts giving rise to the complaint were essentially that the parties had been involved in an accident approximately two years earlier. In their complaint, the Smiths prayed for damages, but in no specific amount. Prior to trial, the Smiths twice amended their complaint to specify damages. The last amendment to the complaint requested damages in the following amounts: $1,500 for "medicals", $12,000 for lost wages, $150,000 for compensatory and special damages (all for Donald Smith), and Marylene Smith's consortium claim for $50,000. The jury verdict form indicates that it awarded Donald $16,800 for past and future medical expenses, $56,000 for past and future wages, and $2,500 for past and future pain and suffering. Marylene was awarded $2,500 for her consortium claim.

Thereafter, Miller moved the trial court for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing as one of her bases that the amount of damages awarded by the jury exceeded the amount requested in the Smiths' prayer. The trial court overruled this motion. Also subsequent to the jury verdict, the Smiths moved the trial court to find R.C. 2317.45(B) unconstitutional. This motion was also overruled. It is from these judgment entries that both appellant and cross-appellants each assert two assignments of error. We will address appellant's assignments of error first.

Assignment of Error Number One

The trial court erred in not finding that the jury's awards for medical expenses and lost wages exceeded that which was specifically prayed for in the Smiths' complaint and were, therefore, barred under Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 54(C).

Appellant argues that Civ.R. 54(C) prevents a damage award to a party if separate awards to the same party exceed the separate damages requested in the party's prayer for relief. Appellees argue that an award of damages does not have to mirror the damages as broken down in the complaint, as long as the total award does not exceed the total damages requested in the prayer.

Civ.R. 54(C) states:

(C) Demand for Judgment. A judgment by default shall not be different in kind from or exceed in amount that prayed for in the demand for judgment. Except as to a party against whom a judgment is entered by default, every final judgment shall grant the-relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled; however, a demand for judgment which seeks a judgment for money shall limit the claimant to the sum claimed in the demand unless he amends his demand not later than seven days before the commencement of the trial. ***

Civ.R. 54(C) thus limits the amount of damages awarded to the amount in the prayer on the sixth day prior to trial. Bishop v. Grdina (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 26, 28. The purpose of this rule is to give the defendant notice of the amount of his potential liability. Id.

Other courts, presented with facts similar to those presented herein, have concluded that an award of damages does not have to follow the breakdown pleaded in the complaint as long as the award does not exceed the total damages requested in the complaint. Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co. (1988), 39 Ohio App.3d 99, 106; Center Ridge Ganley, Inc. v. Stinn (1991), 71 Ohio App.3d 514, 521. This rule is proper as it conforms with the Ohio Supreme Court's statement of Civ.R. 54(C)'s purpose to provide a defendant with notice of the amount of his potential liability. Mers, supra; Bishop, supra.

Thus, although the jury award of damages for lost wages and medical expenses did not mirror those requested in the amended complaint, there was no error in the trial court's overruling of appellant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on this issue as the total amount of damages awarded to appellee Donald Smith ($75,300) did not exceed those requested in the amended complaint ($213,500).

This assignment of error is overruled.

Assignment of Error Number Two

The trial court erred in sustaining the jury's verdict for lost wages where not [sic] evidence existed to support such an award.

Appellant argues that the jury's award of lost wages to appellee was improper, as it was not supported by evidence.

Appellant has failed to provide us with a transcript of the jury trial.

In order

...