Testerman v. Smith

Roanoke County Circuit Court

Testerman v. Smith

41 Va. Cir. 620, 1995 Va. Cir. LEXIS 1378

CourtRoanoke County Circuit Court

DecidedOctober 17, 1995

DocketCase No. CL92-486

StatusPublished

This text of 41 Va. Cir. 620 (Testerman v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Roanoke County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Testerman v. Smith, 41 Va. Cir. 620, 1995 Va. Cir. LEXIS 1378 (Va. Super. Ct. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

By Judge Robert P. Doherty, Jr.

Plaintiff asks for an additur to his $8,000.00 personal injury verdict, or in the alternative, a new trial on damages. He argues that in addition to his request for compensation for lost wages and pain and suffering, his medical expenses alone exceeded $15,000.00 and that the jury must have suffered from a misunderstanding or misconception of the facts or the law of the case to arrive at its verdict. Defendant, on the other hand, asserts that the Plaintiffs credibility was seriously compromised during the trial and that the jury could have easily rationalized that the Plaintiffs injuries were not as serious as he claimed. I agree with the Defendant’s position. The motion for an additur, or in the alternative, a new trial on damages is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By Judge Robert P. Doherty, Jr.

Plaintiff asks for an additur to his $8,000.00 personal injury verdict, or in the alternative, a new trial on damages. He argues that in addition to his request for compensation for lost wages and pain and suffering, his medical expenses alone exceeded $15,000.00 and that the jury must have suffered from a misunderstanding or misconception of the facts or the law of the case to arrive at its verdict. Defendant, on the other hand, asserts that the Plaintiffs credibility was seriously compromised during the trial and that the jury could have easily rationalized that the Plaintiffs injuries were not as serious as he claimed. I agree with the Defendant’s position. The motion for an additur, or in the alternative, a new trial on damages is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 Va. Cir. 620, 1995 Va. Cir. LEXIS 1378, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/testerman-v-smith-vaccroanokecty-1995.