Connor Tyree v. Pamela Bell

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed an order granting Pamela Bell a new trial limited to damages after a jury returned a zero-dollar verdict despite Connor Tyree’s admission of liability and evidence of accident-related injury and medical expenses. The court held that the verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence and that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion despite delaying its ruling on the Rule 59 motion.

Holdings

1. The circuit court properly granted a new trial because the jury's zero-dollar verdict was against the clear weight of the uncontroverted evidence establishing that Bell sustained at least some accident-related injury and incurred reasonable and necessary treatment expenses.
2. Where uncontroverted proof establishes that the defendant proximately caused at least some physical and pecuniary injuries, a zero-dollar verdict cannot stand.
3. Because Tyree admitted liability and the evidence established that Bell suffered at least some accident-related injury, the circuit court correctly concluded that the jury's remaining duty was to determine the amount of damages.
4. The circuit court's delay was regrettable but did not constitute an abuse of discretion because Tyree failed to demonstrate specific prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by setting aside the jury's zero-dollar verdict and granting a new trial on damages.
2. Whether the circuit court improperly invaded the jury's province by rejecting the jury's finding that Bell was not injured as a proximate result of the accident.
3. Whether the circuit court correctly concluded that, after Tyree admitted liability and the evidence established at least some injury and damages, the jury's duty was limited to determining damages.
4. Whether the circuit court's delay in ruling on Bell's Rule 59 motions prejudiced Tyree and constituted an abuse of discretion.
5. Whether the circuit court properly relied on Gunno v. McNair in granting a new trial.

Disposition

affirmed