Jeanne Elizabeth Grimm v. Carli Rae Chilcote and Timothy David Chilcote
16-1079
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jul 19, 2017Background
- On Nov. 17, 2012 Jeanne Grimm was rear-ended in a low-speed collision; defendants Carli (driver) and Timothy Chilcote (owner) admitted liability but disputed damages.
- Jeanne developed neck and right‑side pain after the crash, underwent conservative care, massage, repeated physical therapy, diagnostic injections, and multiple radiofrequency ablations; treating physicians attributed ongoing problems and future care to the collision.
- Total past medical charges submitted to the jury were about $28,833; jury awarded $3,000 for past medicals and $7,027 total (including past pain and lost wages), with no future damages.
- Defendants’ reconstruction expert opined the impact was very low speed and would typically cause only a transient muscle strain, undermining the extent of claimed injuries.
- Trial court denied Jeanne’s motion for new trial challenging the inadequacy of damages and overruled her objection to jury Instruction 18 (a “no recovery for second injury” instruction).
- The appellate court held Instruction 18 was not supported by the evidence, prejudicially injected an improper legal theory, and reversed for a new trial on scope and amount of damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of damages / new trial | Grimm: $7,027 verdict and $3,000 medical award are inadequate given extensive treatment and permanency opinions | Chilcotes: jury may credit their low‑impact evidence and reject portions of plaintiff’s damages | Trial court found award supported by evidence; appellate court focused on instructional error and remanded for new trial on damages because instruction 18 was prejudicial |
| Validity of Instruction 18 (No recovery for second injury) | Grimm: no evidence of a later independent act causing new or different injury; instruction unwarranted and prejudicial | Chilcotes: medical records noted pain flares after ordinary activities, justifying instruction | Appellate court: instruction unsupported—no evidence of a subsequent, independent act—its use was prejudicial; error requires new trial |
| Causation / scope of liability (eggshell plaintiff; aggravation) | Grimm: defendant remains liable for all harm proximately caused, including aggravation of pre‑existing conditions | Chilcotes: subsequent events/activities could limit liability; argued low‑force collision unlikely to cause facet‑mediated, long‑term injury | Court: ordinary proximate‑cause instructions and eggshell rule were proper, but instruction limiting recovery for later acts (Instruction 18) was inappropriate absent evidence of an intervening independent act |
| Prejudice from erroneous instruction | Grimm: Instruction 18 likely led jury to undercompensate; prejudiced her right to recovery | Chilcotes: jury could accept or reject medical evidence independent of instruction | Appellate court: error was prejudicial or its lack of prejudice cannot be determined; reversal and new trial required |
Key Cases Cited
- Bryant v. Parr, 872 N.W.2d 366 (Iowa 2015) (standards for reviewing new trial rulings)
- Clinton Physical Therapy Servs., P.C. v. John Deere Health Care, Inc., 714 N.W.2d 603 (Iowa 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for discretionary new‑trial grounds)
- Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Thermogas Co., 620 N.W.2d 819 (Iowa 2000) (review of requested jury instructions viewed in light most favorable to party seeking them)
- Olson v. Nieman’s Ltd., 579 N.W.2d 299 (Iowa 1998) (distinguishing proof of injury from proof of amount of damages)
- Pexa v. Auto Owners Ins., 686 N.W.2d 150 (Iowa 2004) (when verdict bears no reasonable relationship to loss, new trial or additur required)
- Becker v. D & E Distributing Co., 247 N.W.2d 727 (Iowa 1976) (use of instruction on later injuries where evidence of subsequent act was disputed)
- Waterloo Sav. Bank v. Waterloo, Cedar Falls & N. Ry., 60 N.W.2d 572 (Iowa 1953) (liability limited to injuries caused by defendant’s acts; jury determines causal allocation)
- Haumersen v. Ford Motor Co., 257 N.W.2d 7 (Iowa 1977) (discussion of superseding/intervening cause and foreseeability)
- Thompson v. Kaczinski, 774 N.W.2d 829 (Iowa 2009) (adopting Restatement (Third) approach to causation/scope)
- Mitchell v. Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist., 832 N.W.2d 689 (Iowa 2013) (scope‑of‑liability framework under Restatement (Third))
- Deboom v. Raining Rose, Inc., 772 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2009) (error in giving an instruction merits reversal if prejudicial)