Jesse Sutton (“Sutton”) appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motions for directed verdict and to correct error in a personal injury action brought against him by Robert and Julia Gardner. The issue in the case is: Whether the trial court erred in denying his motions.
Conclusion (slip op. at 18): We find that the jury’s award was not excessive and, further, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Key Analysis (slip op. at 15-16, 17-18): We find that Julia presented evidence that could support a jury determination that she had suffered loss of consortium and was entitled to an award of damages. In light of Julia’s testimony as to the various practical and emotional adjustments that resulted from the accident, we find sufficient probative evidence to support the jury’s award to Julia, and that there exist several bases . . . upon which the jury’s award can be explained. Thus, we cannot find that the jury’s award was excessive. Nor do we find that the trial court’s denial of Sutton’s motion to correct error, with regard to Julia’s verdict, was against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it and the inferences that may be drawn therefrom. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion . . . We find that Robert presented reasonable sufficient evidence that could support a jury determination that he suffered damages considerably in excess of his medical specials. Robert and his witnesses testified at length that his employment and personal relationships were negatively affected by the accident. We find ample proper bases upon which the jury’s award can be explained.