Murray v. Whitcraft, 291 P.3d 587

Murray was a passenger in a car driven by Whitcraft during an October 17, 2006, single-vehicle crash.
Whitcraft admitted legal fault; Murray sought damages for medical costs, pain and suffering, and related losses.
Jury trial in August 2011 awarded Murray $27,000 total damages.
Murray presented past medical expenses totaling about $35,030; no medical expert testified to itemize accident-related costs.
Murray moved for a new trial on damages; the district court denied (60 days lapsed, deemed denied).
On appeal, the issue is whether the denial of a new trial on damages was an abuse of discretion; the court affirms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court abuse its discretion denying a new trial on damages?	Murray argues the verdict undercompensated uncontested damages.	Whitcraft contends jury could determine damages from evidence; no need to award all categories.	No abuse; substantial evidence supported the verdict.
Should the jury have awarded all four categories of damages listed in Jury Instruction No. 15?	Murray contends the instruction requires full damages for all categories once causation is found.	Whitcraft argues jury may award only proven damages; not required to hit every category.	Not required to award every category; jury warranted to allocate based on evidence.
Does the general verdict form prevent ascertainment of damage categories and amounts?	Murray argues the form prevents understanding the breakdown of damages.	Whitcraft notes the form only asks total damages after a causation finding.	The form does not show breakdowns; Court cannot speculate; yet substantial evidence supports the overall award.

Styren Farms, Inc. v. Roos, 2011 MT 299 (Mont. 2011) (sufficiency of proof of actual damages; de novo review; substantial evidence standard)
Renville v. Taylor, 2000 MT 217 (Mont. 2000) (new trial for lack of evidence supporting pain and suffering in general verdicts)
Hoffman v. Austin, 2006 MT 289, 334 Mont. 357, 147 P.3d 177 (Mont. 2006) (new trial when jury awards only partial damages under general verdicts (overruled on other grounds))
Thompson v. City of Bozeman, 1997 Mont. 284, 945 P.2d 48 (Mont. 1997) (new trial for disallowed damages in absence of evidence of causation)
Lauman v. Lee, 192 Mont. 84, 626 P.2d 830 (Mont. 1981) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in damages)
Ele v. Ehnes, 2003 MT 131, 316 Mont. 69, 68 P.3d 835 (Mont. 2003) (substantial evidence standard for damages; weighing conflicting testimony)
Horn v. Bull River Country Store Props., 2012 MT 245, 366 Mont. 491, 288 P.3d 218 (Mont. 2012) (verdict form and inability to determine thought process; will not speculate)
Seltzer v. Morton, 2007 MT 62, 336 Mont. 225, 154 P.3d 561 (Mont. 2007) (verdict form ambiguity and deference to jury’s decision)