Young v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., s. 96-SC-1134-D
| Decision Date | 03 September 1998 |
| Docket Number | 95-CA-116,Nos. 96-SC-1134-D,s. 96-SC-1134-D |
| Citation | 975 S.W.2d 98 |
| Parties | Linda YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
The Warren Circuit Court entered judgment on a jury verdict awarding appellant Linda Young $13,242.87 in damages as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Young's subsequent motion for new trial alleging irregularity in the jury proceedings (CR 59.01) was denied. Having granted discretionary review of the Court of Appeals decision affirming the trial court, we now reverse and remand for a new trial on the issue of damages.
Liability for the accident is not in dispute; Young's automobile was struck head-on by an intoxicated hit-and-run driver. A default judgment was entered against the drunken driver. Young and the owner of the car which struck her have settled. Appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is Young's underinsured motorist carrier.
The primary evidentiary dispute at trial focused on Young's preexisting back condition and the extent to which it was aggravated, if any, by the trauma of the automobile accident. Young, who had back and leg pain attributable to spondylolisthesis prior to the accident, told the police officer at the scene that she was not injured. After the accident, however, her spondylolisthesis increased and her pain worsened. Subsequently, Dr. Paul McCombs, a Nashville neurological surgeon, performed a decompressive laminectomy and spinal fusion from L3 to S1, which successfully reduced Young's pain. In his deposition Dr. McCombs attributed the increase in Young's spondylolisthesis to the accident.
Dr. Dennis O'Keefe, a neurologist who examined Young at the request of State Farm, opined, inter alia, that 75% or more of Young's physical complaints were due to her pre-existing condition, and that there was a 75-80% probability that Young would have required back surgery even if she had not been involved in the traffic accident.
During deliberations a dispute arose among the jurors as to the substance of the testimony of Dr. McCombs and Dr. O'Keefe. The jurors asked the bailiff for the doctors' depositions and were informed by him that they were not allowed to have the depositions. Deliberations continued thereafter and the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $13,242.87.
In her motion for new trial, supported by the affidavits of three jurors, appellant Young concedes that the jury was not entitled to take the depositions into the jury room. Thompson v. Walker, Ky.App., 565 S.W.2d 172 (1978). Young claims, however, that had she been apprised of the jury's request she would have moved the court to inform the jury that parts of the depositions could be reread to them or a portion of the videotaped testimony replayed in order to resolve any dispute as to the substance of the testimony of the expert witnesses. The fact that the jury's request was not communicated to counsel or to the trial court, appellant maintains, constitutes a clear irregularity in the trial of the case warranting the trial court's granting of a new trial.
In its order denying the motion for new trial the circuit court found ...
To continue reading
Request your trial