Gilliam v. Immel, 795 S.E.2d 458

Nancy Mae Gilliam sued Jacob Immel for personal injuries after his vehicle struck the rear of hers; Immel admitted liability so trial addressed only damages.
At impact Gilliam was belted, reported no visible injuries, and presented no evidence of vehicle damage; photographs showed no discernible rear-bumper damage.
Gilliam sought emergency care the day of the accident, later treated for neck/back complaints, and ultimately had shoulder surgery about ten months after the crash; she introduced medical bills totaling about $73,000.
Dr. Marion Herring (treating orthopedist) related shoulder pathology and surgery to the accident based on Gilliam’s history but conceded MRI showed preexisting degenerative conditions; no other treating physicians testified on causation or necessity for neck/back treatment.
Defense expert Dr. Terry Whipple (orthopedics) testified the accident produced only short-term muscular strains of neck and low back and that the shoulder pathology and surgery were not related to the accident.
The jury returned a verdict for Gilliam on liability but awarded zero dollars in damages; the trial court denied Gilliam’s motions to set aside the verdict or for a new trial. Immel’s alleged racially charged on-scene statement was excluded at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the zero-dollar verdict must be set aside because Gilliam presented uncontroverted evidence of injury	Gilliam: presented evidence of neck/back pain, treatment, and medical bills showing at least six weeks of injury and related treatment	Immel: evidence conflicted on causation/necessity; jurors could disbelieve subjective complaints and find no compensable damage	Court: No; credibility conflicts and lack of medical proof on neck/back causation/necessity support zero-dollar verdict
Whether treating physician’s shoulder diagnosis and surgery required an award of damages	Gilliam: Dr. Herring tied shoulder injury/surgery to accident	Immel: MRI showed preexisting shoulder pathology; causation disputed	Court: No; causation disputed and jury properly weighed expert testimony
Whether admission of liability shifts burden to prove damages away from plaintiff	Gilliam: implied that liability admission compels damages award	Immel: admission is limited to negligence/causation of collision, not compensable damages	Held: Admission of liability does not relieve plaintiff of proving damages by preponderance
Whether trial court erred in excluding Immel’s racially charged on-scene statement	Gilliam: statement probative of mental anguish from the accident experience	Immel: statement irrelevant to physical-injury damages; prejudicial	Court: No error; statement not relevant to damages for physical injuries and exclusion was within court’s discretion

Vilseck v. Campbell, 242 Va. 10 (discussing review of zero-dollar verdicts and viewing evidence in defendant’s favor)
Mastin v. Theirjung, 238 Va. 434 (zero-dollar verdicts; jury credibility/weight issues control)
Hall v. Hall, 240 Va. 360 (jury verdict final where testimony conflicts or reasonable minds may differ)
Bradner v. Mitchell, 234 Va. 483 (distinguishing cases where part of damages awarded but remainder inadequate)
John Crane, Inc. v. Jones, 274 Va. 581 (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Kondaurov v. Kerdasha, 271 Va. 646 (mental anguish recoverable when fairly inferred from bodily injury)
Naccash v. Burger, 223 Va. 406 (damages recoverable for reasonable proximate consequences of breach; proof of damage required)