Arrahmeen Taylor, plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee v. Cc Recycling, L.L.C., defendant-appellee/cross-appellant., 16-1539

In Nov. 2012 plaintiff Arrahmeen Taylor was struck in the head by a ~500 lb metal pole while at CC Recycling’s scrapyard; CC employee attempted to manually unload the pole. Taylor was knocked unconscious and later treated in the ER for a nonserious head injury.
Taylor had a long preexisting history of cluster migraines; he later claimed the injury materially aggravated them. A neurologist testified the injury increased whole-person impairment from 5% to 20%, but he did not review preinjury records.
Taylor sued CC for negligence (filed Sept. 2014). A jury awarded $4,904.52 past medical expenses, $500 past loss of bodily function, and $500 past pain and suffering (total $5,904.52), then reduced by 45% comparative fault to $3,247.49.
CC moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on past medical expenses for lack of proof of reasonableness and moved to tax costs based on an offer to confess judgment under Iowa Code ch. 677; Taylor moved for a new trial arguing inadequate damages and counsel misconduct.
The district court denied Taylor’s new-trial motion and CC’s JNOV but taxed all court costs to Taylor. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed denial of the new trial, reversed as to past medical expenses, and remanded cost allocation (limited to costs after the offer date).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of damages / new trial	Taylor: jury award inadequate given injury and neurologist testimony; juror misconduct by defense	CC: evidence supported jury’s allocation and awards	Court: no abuse of discretion; evidence supported jurors’ credibility determinations and awards; new trial denied
Comparative fault (45%)	Taylor: no credible evidence of hard-hat policy or notice; he was not foreseeable risk	CC: policy evidence and Taylor’s conduct supported fault allocation	Court: jury could find policy in effect and Taylor failed to get a hard hat; 45% fault sustained
Past medical expenses (proof of reasonableness)	Taylor: billed amount should be admissible; Equal Protection argument (not preserved)	CC: plaintiff must prove reasonable value via payment evidence or expert testimony; billed amount alone insufficient	Court: reversed district court; Taylor failed to prove reasonable value; JNOV should have been entered for CC on medical expenses
Offer to confess judgment / taxation of costs	Taylor: he wasn’t properly served with the offer so costs should not be shifted	CC: email sufficed; plaintiff’s counsel received and rejected offer	Court: email receipt and rejection satisfied notice under facts; but only costs incurred after the offer may be shifted to Taylor; remanded to reallocate costs accordingly

Pexa v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 686 N.W.2d 150 (Iowa 2004) (plaintiff must prove reasonable value of medical services; billed amount alone is insufficient)
Rivera v. Woodward Res. Ctr., 865 N.W.2d 887 (Iowa 2015) (standard of review for denial of new-trial motion)
Foggia v. Des Moines Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 543 N.W.2d 889 (Iowa 1996) (test for adequacy of damages: whether verdict fairly compensates the injury)
Matthess v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 521 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 1994) (same principle on adequacy of damages)
Kautman v. Mar-Mac Cmty. Sch. Dist., 255 N.W.2d 146 (Iowa 1977) (deference to jury’s credibility determinations)
Weaver Const. Co. v. Heitland, 348 N.W.2d 230 (Iowa 1984) (plaintiff only responsible for costs incurred after offer to confess judgment if award does not exceed offer)
Hron v. Ryan, 164 N.W.2d 815 (Iowa 1969) (due process satisfied where notice comes to party’s attention and gives opportunity to respond)