Hawkinson v. Geyer

Citation352 N.W.2d 784
Decision Date31 July 1984
Docket NumberC2-83-1584,Nos. C5-83-1563,s. C5-83-1563
PartiesArchie C. HAWKINSON, et al., Respondents (C5-83-1563), Appellants (C2-83-1584), v. Theodore R. GEYER, et al., Appellants (C5-83-1563), Respondents (C2-83-1584).
CourtCourt of Appeals of Minnesota

Syllabus by the Court

1. The trial court properly denied defendant's motion for a new trial or remittitur.

2. Plaintiffs properly preserved their right to appeal the punitive damages issue and are entitled to claim punitive damages when a driver, knowing she was drunk and therefore a risk to the safety of others, recklessly drives a car and injures another.

3. Defendants are not entitled to a credit for plaintiffs' medicare benefits when a jury awards special damages to plaintiffs.

Daniel A. Utter, Minneapolis, for respondents (C5-83-1563), appellants (C2-83-1584).

Bruce Elliott, Minneapolis, for appellants (C5-83-1563), respondents (C2-83-1584).

Heard, considered, and decided by FOLEY, P.J. and SEDGWICK and RANDALL, JJ.

OPINION

SEDGWICK, Judge.

Respondents-defendants Theodore Geyer and Gloria Vlcek (defendants) appeal from the denial of their motion for a new trial or remittitur. Appellants-plaintiffs Mr. Archie and Mrs. Sophie Hawkinson (plaintiffs) appeal from the trial court's order striking their claim for punitive damages. They also ask this court to modify the trial court's judgment to grant defendants credit only for that portion of their special damages that were covered by no-fault benefits. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand in part.

FACTS

On November 20, 1981, defendants drove to Geyer's brother's home, which is less than a block from the plaintiffs' apartment, and drank from 9:30 a.m. until nearly 9 p.m.

Then they got into Geyer's car and Vlcek, an unlicensed driver, began speeding down Minnehaha Avenue swerving from curb to curb, driving across medians, down sidewalks, through the plaintiff's front yard and finally through the window and wall of plaintiff's garden level living room.

Vlcek's blood alcohol level after the accident was .28, nearly three times the .10 level established for drunk driving under Minnesota law.

Mr. and Mrs. Hawkinson, 78 and 68 respectively, were watching TV in their garden level apartment when defendants' car burst into their living room pinning Mr. Hawkinson to the wall and Mrs. Hawkinson under the car.

Both remained pinned for nearly 25 minutes while paramedic crews cut away walls and sifted through rubble to get to them. Mrs. Hawkinson was rushed by ambulance to Hennepin County Medical Center where she spent 10 touch-and-go days in intensive care and another 15 days under hospital care and observation.

She sustained 7 broken ribs, sprained her spine and right knee, and fractured her right clavicle. The sprain to her back and knee aggravated previous injuries. Mrs. Hawkinson's doctor diagnosed her person as being 25% permanently disabled.

As a result of the accident Mrs. Hawkinson's lung capacity is 57% of normal. Her deformed chest causes her great pain making her short of breath, and robbing her of her usual good humor.

Her right leg occasionally gives way because of the injury to her knee. Additionally, her shoulder injury restricts her ability to do even the simplest household chores.

Mr. Hawkinson also sustained injuries as a result of this accident. He bruised and cut his left foot, injured his right hip, bruised both arms, strained his chest and right knee. In addition, the accident aggravated neck and back injuries he sustained in a car accident in 1979.

None of Mr. Hawkinson's physical injuries are permanent, but doctors believe that his severe post-trauma stress disorder which has developed since the accident is permanent. The stress disorder manifests itself in sleeplessness, frequent nightmares, depression, bouts of crying, and almost constant worrying about his wife's weakened and fragile condition. Mr. Hawkinson must take medication to control it.

Defendants concede liability in this personal injury action. The case went to the jury solely on the damages issues. By special verdict the jury found Mr. Hawkinson's damages totaled $75,522.24, including special damages of $3,522.24, and Mrs. Hawkinsons's damages totaled $177,543.66, including special damages of $22,543.66.

Mr. Hawkinson received no-fault benefits of $912.13, and Mrs. Hawkinson received no-fault benefits of $1,666.10. The portion of the plaintiffs' special damages not covered by no-fault benefits was covered by medicare benefits.

Defendants moved for a new trial or remittitur, and for credit for all of plaintiffs special damages rather than only the amount of the plaintiffs' no-fault benefits. The court denied a new trial, but reduced the judgments for plaintiffs to $72,000 for Mr. Hawkinson and $155,000 for Mrs. Hawkinson, and granted defendants credit for all plaintiffs' special damages.

ISSUES

1. Did the trial court err in denying defendant's motion for a new trial or remittitur?

2. Did plaintiffs' properly preserve their right to appeal the punitive damages issue?

3. Are plaintiffs entitled to claim punitive damages under Minnesota law?

4. When the jury finds that the plaintiffs are entitled to special damages, are defendants entitled to a credit in the amount of plaintiffs' medicare benefits?

ANALYSIS

1. An appellate court will not set aside a trial court's decision allowing a jury verdict to stand against a claim that the verdict is excessive, unless the trial court's exercise of its discretion allows an unreasonable verdict to stand. DeWitt v. Schuhbauer, 287 Minn. 279, 177 N.W.2d 790 (1970).

There are no fixed standards by which this determination can be made. Tuominen v. Waldholm, 301 Minn. 492, 493, 221 N.W.2d 709, 710 (1974). A jury's award cannot be justified or discredited by comparison to other verdicts. Stenzel v. Bach, 295 Minn. 257, 203 N.W.2d 819 (1973); Ahranholz v. Hennepin County, 295 N.W.2d 645 (Minn.1980).

Defendants argue that Mr. Hawkinson's injuries are not significant or permanent. They contend that Mr. Hawkinson's testimony attributing the pain in his knee and lower back area to this accident, rather than an earlier accident, must be rejected in light of Rehnke v. Jammes, 283 Minn. 431, 435, 168 N.W.2d 494, 497 (1969). Rehnke held that where plaintiff was involved in two rear-end collisions within a two-month period, and it was the medical testimony of both parties that the first tortfeasor caused permanent injury which the second tortfeasor aggravated, it was error to submit the issue of permanent injury with respect to the second tortfeasor to the jury and permit the jury to exonerate the first tortfeasor.

Rehnke is factually distinguishable. First, the permanency of Mr. Hawkinson's knee and back injuries from the first car accident was not determined. Secondly, the accidents in Rehnke were only 2 months apart, not nearly 2 1/2 years apart as is the case here.

Although Mr. Hawkinson had injured his knee and lower back in the 1979 accident and continued to receive treatment for these injuries, the evidence clearly establishes that he had resumed many of the activities he enjoyed before the 1979 accident by the time of the 1981 accident.

The evidence leaves no doubt that his personality and lifestyle changed as a result of the injuries suffered in the 1981 accident. Considering all of Mr. Hawkinson's injuries resulting from this accident we find the jury was justified in assessing $72,000 for his past and future suffering.

Mrs. Hawkinson is unquestionably significantly and permanently disabled as a result of the second accident. For defendants to argue that she is largely recovered and only experiences intermittent mild pain is untenable.

She lived through a terrible month in the hospital and spent another two months totally bedridden. For months after that she was so weak she could not even prepare meals at home. Leaving the house was impossible.

There is ample evidence showing her changed lifestyle due to the injuries she suffered in the 1981 accident. Before the accident Mrs. Hawkinson was not the picture of perpetual health; she had sleeping problems; had a bout with cancer; and had occasional back problems. But she was not the debilitated person she is today and will be for the rest of her life as a result of this accident. Therefore, we affirm the damage award.

2. Defendants contend that the procedural posture of plaintiffs' appeal does not permit appellate review of the trial court's grant of a partial summary judgment for defendants on the issue of punitive damages. Defendants claim this issue is non-reviewable because plaintiffs did not identify the subsection of Rule 103.03 of the Rules of Appellate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Biswell v. Duncan
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • August 18, 1987
    ...Iowa 94, 66 N.W.2d 841 (1954)); Kentucky (Wiggington's Adm'r v. Rickert, 186 Ky. 650, 217 S.W. 933 (1920)); Minnesota (Hawkinson v. Geyer, 352 N.W.2d 784 (Minn.1984)); Mississippi (Southland Broadcasting Co. v. Tracy, 210 Miss. 836, 50 So.2d 572 (1951)); Missouri (Smith v. Sayles, 637 S.W.2......
  • Johnson v. Rogers
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • August 25, 1988
    ...Sebastian v. Wood, 246 Iowa 94, 66 N.W.2d 841 (1954)); Wiggington's Adm'r v. Rickert, 186 Ky. 650, 217 S.W. 933 (1920); Hawkinson v. Geyer, 352 N.W.2d 784 (Minn.App.1984); Southland Broadcasting Co. v. Tracy, 210 Miss. 836, 50 So.2d 572 (1951); Smith v. Sayles, 637 S.W.2d 714 (Mo.Ct.App.198......
  • McMahon v. Chryssikos
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • October 3, 1986
    ...Wood, 246 Iowa 94, 66 N.W.2d 841 (Sup.Ct.1954); Minnesota--Anderson v. Amundson, 354 N.W.2d 895 (Ct.App.Minn.1984); Hawkinson v. Geyer, 352 N.W.2d 784 (Ct.App.Minn.1984); Montana--Allers v. Willis, 197 Mont. 499, 643 P.2d 592 (Sup.Ct.1982); New York--Colligan v. Fera, 76 Misc.2d 22, 349 N.Y......
  • Braun v. Wal-Mart, Inc., No. 19-CO-01-9790 (Minn. State Dist. 6/30/2008)
    • United States
    • Minnesota District Court
    • June 30, 2008
    ...or intent to harm. See Minn. Stat. § 549.20, Kay v. Peter Motor Co., 483 N.W.2d 481, 485 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992); Hawkinson v. Geyer, 352 N.W.2d 784, 788 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984), see also Kimzey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 107 F.3d 568, 575-76 (8th Cir. 1997) (imposing $350,000 punitive damages a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT