SHARP v. WHITWORTH
2017 OK CIV APP 40
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- Motor-vehicle collision on Sept. 7, 2012: Whitworth rear-ended Sharp on I-35; liability was contested at trial but jury found for Sharp on negligence.
- Sharp suffered an L1 compression fracture and reported immediate and ongoing back pain; treated by a neurosurgeon and physical therapy, reached MMI.
- Experts disagreed on severity and permanency: Whitworth’s expert downplayed ongoing need for treatment; Sharp’s expert could not state future care to a reasonable medical certainty.
- At trial the jury found liability but awarded zero damages and declined punitive damages (finding no reckless conduct).
- Sharp moved for a new trial arguing the zero-damage award was inadequate and inconsistent with uncontroverted evidence of past pain and permanency; the trial court granted a new trial on damages only and directed the parties to confer about potentially stipulating liability if punitive damages were withdrawn.
- Whitworth appealed the new-trial order; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, holding the zero award was inconsistent with established liability and uncontroverted evidence of pain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in granting a new trial on damages after a verdict finding liability but awarding zero damages | Sharp: zero award was inadequate and inconsistent because evidence of injury and pain was uncontroverted | Whitworth: substantial competent evidence supported zero damages; trial court substituted its judgment for the jury | Held: affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; uncontroverted evidence of pain made zero damages inconsistent with liability |
| Whether a new trial on damages would improperly reintroduce punitive-damage issues | Sharp: new trial limited to actual damages only; punitive issues are separate and not interwoven | Whitworth: trial court’s order inviting conferral on liability/punitive damages effectively put punitive damages back before a jury | Held: no reversible error — order did not itself reinstate punitive damages; damages-only retrial appropriate because issues are not interwoven |
Key Cases Cited
- Capshaw v. Gulf Ins. Co., 107 P.3d 595 (2005) (standard of appellate review for grant of new trial: abuse of discretion)
- Clay v. Choctaw Nation Care Ctr., LLC, 210 P.3d 855 (2009) (zero-damage award inconsistent where liability established and damages are compelling/uncontroverted)
- Hallford v. Schumacher, 323 P.2d 989 (1958) (failure to award damages for proved pain and suffering is effectively a finding of no liability)
- Burkett v. Moran, 410 P.2d 876 (1965) (uncontradicted evidence of pain and suffering requires recovery if liability exists)
- Lierly v. Tidewater Petroleum Corp., 139 P.3d 897 (2006) (new trial on a single issue appropriate where issues are not interwoven)