Weber v. Kinnen, 2011 Ohio 6718

Weber was rear-ended by Kinnen on July 7, 2005; Weber claimed medical expenses above $40,000 and lost wages over $200,000, plus noneconomic damages.
Kinnen admitted negligence but argued her conduct was not the proximate cause of Weber's claimed damages, attributing continued pain to a December 2004 prior accident.
Weber had ongoing treatment after both accidents, with substantial medical visits and therapy, delaying his return to work until January 2007.
The jury initially awarded Weber $5,670 in medical expenses, $24,295 in lost wages, and nothing for pain and suffering; after instruction, the jury added $10 for pain and suffering.
The trial court granted Weber’s motion for a new trial on the ground of inadequate damages; the issue on appeal is whether that grant was proper under Civ.R. 59.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a new trial under Civ.R. 59.	Weber contends the damages were not improperly influenced by passion and the verdict weight supported the jury’s finding.	Kinnen argues the jury’s pain-and-suffering award was inadequate given medical damages, justifying a new trial.	Yes; trial court abused discretion; reverse and remand for judgment consistent with the jury verdict.

Rohde v. Farmer, 23 Ohio St.2d 82 (Ohio 1970) (abuse-of-discretion standard for new-trial rulings)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard; definition of unreasonable conduct)
McCarthy v. Sterling Chems., Inc., 193 Ohio App.3d 164 (Ohio App.3d 2011) (review limited to stated Civ.R. 59 grounds; abuse requires unreasonable conduct)
Antal v. Olde Worlde Prods., Inc., 9 Ohio St.3d 144 (Ohio 1984) (Civ.R. 59 grounds and scope of appellate review)
O’Day v. Webb, 29 Ohio St.2d 215 (Ohio 1972) (historical basis for trial-court discretion in new-trial rulings)
Weidner v. Blazic, 98 Ohio App.3d 321 (Ohio App. 1994) (manifest-weight review of damages; jury credibility assessment)