Dorothy Watson v. Robert L. Payne, Jr., 359 S.W.3d 166

This is a Tennessee Court of Appeals decision in Dorothy Watson v. Robert L. Payne, Jr., arising from a November 2007 rear-end collision.
Watson, then 74, was a passenger in a pickup struck from behind on Thompson Lane in Murfreesboro; liability was admitted by Payne, but damages were contested.
Watson filed suit in Rutherford County Circuit Court seeking compensatory damages for injuries alleged to result from the collision.
In April 2010 Watson amended to cap ad damnum at $650,000; Payne answered denying damages and asserting comparative fault.
Trial in May 2010 focused on damages; the jury awarded Watson zero damages, and the trial court denied motions for a new trial or additur.
On appeal Watson contends the zero-damages verdict is not supported by material evidence given unrefuted expert testimony of injury and need for medical evaluation and treatment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Damages award supported by evidence?	Watson argues experts showed injury and needed treatment; zero award not supported.	Payne contends evidence supports no compensable injury proximately caused by the collision.	No; the zero award was not within the range of reasonableness given evidence of post-accident evaluation costs.
Additur/remittitur authority on appeal?	Watson sought new trial or additur for at least past medical bills and some future bills.	Payne opposes additur, arguing appellate courts lack authority to grant additur; trial court should decide.	Remand for trial court to consider additur; appellate court lacks authority to grant additur itself.

Kilpatrick v. Bryant, 868 S.W.2d 594 (Tenn. 1993) (elements of negligence include damages proved by plaintiff)
Hale v. Ostrow, 166 S.W.3d 713 (Tenn. 2005) (causation and damages resolved by finder of fact)
Grandstaff v. Hawks, 36 S.W.3d 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (damages determination within jury's purview)
Newsom v. Markus, 588 S.W.2d 883 (Tenn. App. 1979) (recoverability of medical evaluation expenses even without injury)
Brown v. Chesor, 6 S.W.3d 479 (Tenn. App. 1999) (reasonableness/necessity of medical expenses disputed by jury)
Coffey v. Fayette Tabular Prods., 929 S.W.2d 326 (Tenn. 1996) (trial court may suggest remittitur for inadequate damages)
Poole v. Kroger Co., 604 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1980) (appellate review limited to whether damage award meets threshold of reasonableness)
Goodale v. Langenberg, 243 S.W.3d 575 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (standard of review for jury verdicts in Tennessee)