Daniel v. Smith

The plaintiff was not entitled to damages for future pain and suffering where the evidence showed that he had made a complete recovery.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Malcolm Smith sued Matthew W. Daniel for personal injuries arising from an automobile collision. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Smith and awarded damages of $2,901 for medical expenses; $6,695 for pain and suffering; and $18,000 for attorney fees and expenses of litigation. On appeal, Daniel claims the trial court erred in i allowing Smith to present evidence of his litigation expenses; ii its jury charge on attorney fees and expenses of litigation; iii admitting an exhibit listing Smith’s attorney fees and expenses of litigation; iv refusing to give Daniel’s requested charge on comparative negligence; v allowing Smith to testify he did not seek follow-up medical care due to a lack of financial resources; vi permitting Daniel to be cross-examined about a guilty plea to a traffic ticket; and vii charging the jury on future pain and suffering. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part and reverse in part. The evidence shows that on the evening of October 3, 2000, Daniel was driving his vehicle on Atlanta Road in Cobb County and attempted to make a left turn onto Paces Ferry. Smith was driving his vehicle on Atlanta Road in the opposite direction. As Smith drove through the intersection, Daniel turned into Smith’s vehicle and struck the driver’s side door. According to Smith and his passenger, Melvin Wynn, Smith approached the intersection going the speed limit, had a green light, and did not activate his blinker or slow as if to turn. Daniel testified that Smith turned on his blinker and slowed as if to turn right, but went straight through the intersection.

1. Daniel contends the trial court erred in allowing evidence of attorney fees and litigation expenses to be presented to the jury. In related arguments, Daniel also maintains the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict and in giving a jury charge on Smith’s claim for attorney fees and litigation expenses. We disagree.

Daniel v. Smith

The plaintiff was not entitled to damages for future pain and suffering where the evidence showed that he had made a complete recovery.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report