Lewison v. Renner
905 N.W.2d 540
Neb.2018Background
- On Dec. 21, 2012, Renner turned left and collided with Lewison’s vehicle; Lewison was treated in the ER for neck/back pain.
- Lewison sued for negligence alleging neck, back, and wrist injuries and $53,270 in medical expenses; trial focused on causation and damages.
- Renner’s answer admitted she was negligent and that the collision caused “some injury,” but expressly denied the nature and extent of Lewison’s claimed injuries and damages.
- Trial evidence consisted largely of video depositions from four medical experts (three treating physicians for Lewison and one defense expert); Lewison introduced no medical-bill evidence or special-damages proof.
- Jury was instructed to accept Renner’s negligence and proximate cause of the collision as true, but Lewison still had to prove by a preponderance the nature and extent of damages proximately caused by that negligence.
- The jury returned a general verdict for Renner. The district court denied Lewison’s new-trial motion; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lewison) | Defendant's Argument (Renner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of defendant’s admission of negligence and that collision caused “some injury” | Admission required judgment for Lewison or at least a finding of some recoverable damages; verdict for defendant is unexplained | Admission did not concede the nature/extent of claimed injuries or that claimed damages were proximately caused; Lewison still bore burden to prove causation and damages | Admission of negligence/proximate cause relieved plaintiff of proving those elements, but did not relieve plaintiff of proving which injuries and the nature/extent of damages; verdict for defendant may stand if plaintiff failed to prove those elements |
| Burden of proof on causation for subjective injuries | Treating doctors’ testimony sufficed to show causation more likely than not | Treating doctors’ testimony was equivocal; defense expert contradicted causation beyond initial weeks | For subjective injuries, plaintiff must prove causation via expert testimony stated as at least "probable"; Lewison’s experts were equivocal and insufficient |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support verdict when defendant admits some injury | Given admission, minimal damages should have been awarded absent proof to the contrary | Because defendant denied nature/extent and controverted causation, jury could find plaintiff failed to prove damages | Jury’s general verdict presumed resolution of contested issues for defendant; on this record verdict was supported by evidence |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying new trial | Denial was an abuse because admission made a defense verdict impossible | No abuse of discretion — evidence did not compel a plaintiff verdict | No abuse of discretion; appellate court affirms denial of new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Springer v. Smith, 182 Neb. 107 (1967) (admission that plaintiff "suffered some injury" does not concede plaintiff’s claimed nature/extent of damages)
- Doe v. Zedek, 255 Neb. 963 (1999) (subjective injuries require expert medical testimony establishing causation by at least a probability)
- Dolberg v. Paltani, 250 Neb. 297 (1996) (finding negligence as matter of law relieves plaintiff of proving negligence and proximate cause of collision but leaves causation of damages for jury)
- Macke v. Pierce, 266 Neb. 9 (2003) (elements and burdens in negligence actions)
- Balames v. Ginn, 290 Neb. 682 (2015) (general verdicts are presumed to resolve all issues raised and submitted to the jury)