Usry v. Theusch, 940069

Citation521 N.W.2d 918
Decision Date03 October 1994
Docket NumberNo. 940069,940069
PartiesDonald W. USRY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Karen L. THEUSCH, Defendant and Appellee. Civ.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Dakota

Farhart, Lian, Maxson, Louser & Zent, Minot, for plaintiff and appellant; argued by Steven C. Lian.

McGee, Hankla, Backes & Wheeler, Ltd., Minot, for defendant and appellee; argued by Richard H. McGee, II.

MESCHKE, Justice.

Donald Usry appeals from denial of a new trial after a jury refused him damages for injuries he claimed from his car colliding with Karen Theusch's. We affirm.

When Usry drove with his wife into a controlled intersection in Minot, North Dakota, on August 18, 1988, Theusch's car entered against a red light and struck the side of his car, causing moderate damage to both cars. Usry claimed severe injuries from the collision, including pain and disability that brought about his discharge from the Air Force. Usry sued Theusch for his injuries. Theusch admitted liability, but disputed that Usry's physical condition was caused by the collision.

At a jury trial in December 1993, Usry's orthopedic specialist testified about the extent of Usry's injuries and that they were a result of the collision. Theusch's kinematics expert testified that the collision was minor, that the forces exerted on Usry in the car were minor, and that Usry could not have been injured to the extent he claimed. The jury found that the collision did not proximately cause Usry's injuries.

Usry moved for a new trial, claiming that there was insufficient evidence to justify the verdict and that the verdict was an injustice. While the trial court was "very flabbergasted at the verdict" and thought at first it was a "very surprising decision," the court later denied Usry a new trial in a thoughtful order. See NDRCivP 59(f) ("the judge shall file a written memorandum concisely stating the different grounds on which the ruling is based...."). The court concluded that the factual question of proximate cause had been properly submitted to the jury, that Theusch's expert was qualified "as an expert in the areas about which he testified" even if his qualifications were subject to doubt about "quality and quantity," and that the factual dispute had been properly resolved for Theusch by the jury. Usry appeals.

Usry renews his argument that there was insufficient evidence for the jury's finding that the collision did not cause his injuries. Therefore, Usry claims, the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a new trial. He argues that the jury's finding was contrary to the evidence, that the evidence disputing causation was insufficient to justify the verdict, and that the verdict was an injustice. We disagree.

The standard for review of an order denying a motion for new trial is, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the verdict. Miller v. Breidenbach, 520 N.W.2d 869, 872 (N.D.1994). A denial of a motion for new trial will not be reversed by this court unless the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion. Id. at 872.

A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable or unconscionable manner. A trial court acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable or unconscionable manner when its exercise of discretion is not "the product of a rational mental process by which the facts of record and law relied upon are stated and are considered together for the purpose of achieving a reasoned and reasonable determination," or, as alternatively stated, when it misinterprets or misapplies the law.

State v. Daulton, 518 N.W.2d 719, 724 (N.D.1994) (citations omitted). We see no abuse of discretion in this case.

In a factually similar case, the parties were involved in a low-speed collision, and the plaintiff complained of serious pain and injuries afterwards, but the jury awarded no damages. McCommon v. Hennings, 283 N.W.2d 166 (N.D.1979). We reviewed the evidence "in the light most favorable to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Gisvold v. Windbreak, Inc., 20060209.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • April 19, 2007
    ...together for the purpose of achieving a reasonable determination, or when it misinterprets or misapplies the law. Usry v. Theusch, 521 N.W.2d 918, 919 (N.D. 1994). [¶ 6] Over the years, this Court has variously described the legal tests that have evolved for a district court's consideration......
  • Rittenour v. Gibson, 20020053.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • February 19, 2003
    ...at ¶ 13. "`[I]t would be an invasion of the jury's function for the court to direct the finding of a certain amount.'" Usry v. Theusch, 521 N.W.2d 918, 919 (N.D.1994) (quoting McCommon v. Hennings, 283 N.W.2d 166, 169 [¶ 42] According to evidence presented at trial, Rittenour's total future......
  • Nesseth v. Omlid, 970099
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • March 5, 1998
    ...if any, and it would be an invasion of the jury's function for the court to direct the finding of a certain amount.' " Usry v. Theusch, 521 N.W.2d 918, 919 (N.D.1994)(quoting McCommon v. Hennings, 283 N.W.2d 166, 169 (N.D.1979)). Here, without objection, the jury was instructed to "consider......
  • Gierke v. Gierke, 970207
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • May 13, 1998
    ...spousal support. A court abuses its discretion where it acts "in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner." Usry v. Theusch, 521 N.W.2d 918, 919 (N.D.1994). The majority concludes the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to order H.F. Gierke to purchase life insu......
  • 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