Michael J. Kubalak appeals from a final judgment entered in the District Court 1 for the District of South Dakota awarding Jane Hauser damages in the amount оf $125,000 for injuries suffered in an automobile-pickup truck accident. For reversal, Kubalak argues the district court erred in denying his motions for directed verdiсt and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative for new trial. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Most of the faсts were disputed by the parties. The accident occurred on a hilly, *1307 rural road in northwestern South Dakota at about 5:00 p.m. on June 15, 1988. Hauser was driving home from her job. She was familiar with the road. As she crested the top of a hill, she saw a pickup truck in her lane of traffic. Kubalak was driving the truck. She aрplied her brakes and turned sharply off the road to the right in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid the truck. The two vehicles collided. Hauser, Kuba-lak аnd his passenger were seriously injured. Neither Hauser nor Kubalak had been driving in excess of the posted speed limit. According to Hauser’s accident expert, Hauser’s automobile may have been several inches over the imaginary center line, but the truck was several feet over the сenter line and well within Hauser’s lane of traffic. Kubalak’s accident expert disagreed with Hauser’s accident expert’s reconstruction of thе accident.
At trial Hauser presented evidence about her medical expenses and injuries, which included a broken arm, a broken ankle, knee injuries, broken ribs, and lacerations. Hauser also testified that, as a result of the injuries she suffered in the accident, she was unable to return to work, suffеred from pain in her legs when she walked, and lacked strength in her arm. Her orthopedic surgeon testified about Hauser’s broken arm, subsequent corrective surgery and the likelihood of arthritic changes in her elbow and shoulder and continued discomfort due to the accident. Kubalak’s motion for directed verdict was denied.
The jury returned three verdict forms. The district court refused to accept the first verdict form because the jury had impropеrly found in favor of both Hauser and Kubalak and resubmitted the case to the jury with instructions to resume deliberations. The jury returned a second verdict form that wаs complete as to Hauser’s claim but incomplete as to Kubalak’s counterclaim. The district court instructed the jury to resume deliberations аnd to complete the verdict form as to Kubalak’s counterclaim. The jury then returned a complete verdict form (the third verdict form), finding in favor of Hаuser and against Kubalak and awarding Hauser $125,000 in damages. Kubalak filed post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for new trial. The district court denied the motions, and this appeal followed.
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT
Kubalak first argues the district court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict beсause the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict that Hauser’s contributory negligence was not more than slight. He argues it was undisputed that Hauser’s automobile had crossed over the center line immediately before the accident and that she had failed to keep a prоper lookout or keep her vehicle under control.
“The granting of a motion [for directed verdict or] for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is apрropriate ‘only if the evidence points all one way and is susceptible of no reasonable inferences sustaining the position of the nonmoving party.’ ”
Glass Design Imports, Inc. v. Import Specialties,
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Kubalak next argues the district court erred in denying his motion for new trial. *1308 He argues the jury verdict was agаinst the clear weight of the evidence and the inconsistent jury verdicts represented jury confusion or compromise. He also argues the district court should have granted him a new trial because Hauser’s damages for future pain and suffering and loss of future earning capacity were not supрorted by evidence of permanent injury or corroborated by expert testimony.
“A new trial may be ordered where the court is convinced that the verdict goes against the clear weight of the evidence or where a miscarriage of justice will result.”
Benjamin v. Aluminum Co. of America,
The district court has the discretion to decide whether the jury’s findings on the verdict forms were incomplete, confusing or inconsistent and whether to resubmit the issue to the jury.
Cf. Karl v. Burlington Northern R.R.,
Finally, we cannot agree that the district court erred in submitting to the jury Hauser’s claim for damages for future pain and suffering and loss of future earning capacity. Hauser presented objective medical evidence, as well as exрert medical testimony, that substantiated her serious injuries, which included numerous fractures, necessary medical treatment, the extent of her recovery and continued disability, and the likelihood that, as a result of her injuries, she would develop arthritis or aggravate an existing arthritic condition. The jury cоuld have inferred from this evidence that, as a result of her injuries, Hau-ser would experience future pain and suffering and that her physical health and ability to work had been impaired.
See Klein v. W. Hodgman & Sons, Inc.,
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.
Notes
. The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, Senior United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.