Kevin Bryant v. Robert Lee Rimrodt and Geico General Insurance Company
872 N.W.2d 366
| Iowa | 2015Background
- Passenger Kevin Bryant sued after a 2007 car accident; he claimed neck, back, headache, vision injuries and sought substantial past and future damages, including medical expenses largely for chiropractic care.
- Medical testimony was mixed: treating providers documented ongoing care and assigned impairment; defense experts questioned causation, necessity, and exaggeration of symptoms.
- The jury found Parr 95% at fault, awarded $16,937.53 for past medical expenses and $1,574.66 for lost earnings, but initially $0 for past pain and suffering; parties agreed that medical expenses without any pain award was inconsistent.
- Court sent the jury back once with instructions that an award of medical expenses required some award for pain and suffering; the jury then awarded $1.00 for past pain and suffering and the jury was discharged with no party requesting further deliberations.
- Bryant moved for a new trial arguing the verdict was inconsistent and inadequate; the district court and court of appeals upheld the verdict, but the Iowa Supreme Court held the $1 award was inconsistent with the substantial past-medical-expense award and required a new trial on damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bryant preserved error for appeal by not requesting further deliberations after the jury increased pain award from $0 to $1 | Bryant preserved error via objections and a motion for new trial after parties and court agreed not to send the jury back again | Parr argued Bryant waived the right to challenge by not asking for additional jury deliberations after the $1 award | Preserved: court held objection and motion for new trial sufficed because parties previously had the jury sent back once and all agreed no further deliberations were necessary |
| Whether a verdict awarding substantial past medical expenses but only $1 for pain is legally inconsistent | Bryant: awarding medical expenses for treating pain but only nominal damages for pain is inconsistent and requires a new trial (Cowan) | Parr: $1 cures any inconsistency; injuries were disputed and Bryant not credible | Inconsistent: $1 is nominal and cannot logically coexist with substantial medical expense awards for pain-related treatment; new trial on damages required |
| Scope of retrial after finding verdict inconsistent | Bryant sought retrial on all elements of damages (past and future) | Parr urged retrial limited to the inconsistent line items (past pain), preserving liability and future-damage findings | New trial limited to damages only (liability unchanged); because medical expenses awarded could not be attributed to a single discrete injury and future damages might include new evidence, court ordered retrial on all elements of damages supported by evidence (past and future) |
| Whether loss-of-function award of $0 was inconsistent with medical expenses | Bryant argued it was also inconsistent | Parr and courts below said loss-of-function is a distinct element and could be zero | Not inconsistent: court agreed loss-of-function is separate and the zero award was reconcilable with the medical-expense award |
Key Cases Cited
- Clinton Physical Therapy Servs., P.C. v. John Deere Health Care, Inc., 714 N.W.2d 603 (Iowa 2006) (discusses remedies when special interrogatory answers are inconsistent and preserves option to grant new trial instead of further deliberations)
- Cowan v. Flannery, 461 N.W.2d 155 (Iowa 1990) (holding award of medical expenses to treat pain is inconsistent with zero for pain and requires new trial)
- Hoffman v. Nat’l Med. Enters., Inc., 442 N.W.2d 123 (Iowa 1989) (verdicts to be harmonized when possible)
- Foggia v. Des Moines Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 543 N.W.2d 889 (Iowa 1996) (distinguishing Cowan where small pain award with zero medical expenses can be consistent)
- Brant v. Bockholt, 532 N.W.2d 801 (Iowa 1995) (explains when a new trial on damages may require retrial of related damage elements)
- Fisher v. Davis, 601 N.W.2d 54 (Iowa 1999) (limits scope of retrial when jury clearly awarded medical expenses for a discrete injury)
- McElroy v. State, 708 N.W.2d 385 (Iowa 2005) (general rule that new trial ordinarily retries all issues unless separable)