yes. When asked if the cab driver,
Turner, was negligent, the jury an-
swered no. When asked if it had been
proven that Turner had sustained
injuries as a result of the accident, the
jury answered no. At that point, with
the jury having reached the conclu-
sion Turner had not suffered injuries,
the case was formally closed and the
jury was dismissed.
verdict sheets, he realized the jury
had intended to award Turner $325
for medical expenses incurred while
getting checked out for injuries fol-
lowing the accident. The jury had
also listed an award of $18,000 for
the loss of probable income be-
cause Turner's cab was out of serv-
ice during much of the summer sea-
the taxi cab. The jury did not, how-
ever, award any damages for non-
economic damages.
to the plaintiff in the amount of
$21,145, or the combined amount
for past medical bills, the loss of in-
come and the costs to repair the
cab. In his opinion, Groton said the
jury clearly intended to award dam-
ages to the plaintiff, despite answer-
ing no to the question regarding her
personal injuries.
missed after answering no to the
personal injury question and that
the award of damages came only
after the judge had carefully review-
ed the jury's verdict sheet. The
judge, however, said the amounts in
the various columns for damages
were not filled in as a simple reiter-
sought, but rather suggested the
jury had carefully reviewed each of
the categories and assigned dam-
ages different than what was being
sought by the plaintiff.
Appeals, arguing the judge had
usurped its authority to revise a jury
verdict after the panel had been dis-
missed and the Court of Special Ap-
peals essentially agreed and denied
the $21,145 in damages. The plaintiff,
Turner, then appealed to the higher
Court of Appeals.
Court judge had simply exercised
his power to correct what he saw as
an inconsistent verdict. As a result,
the Court of Appeals decision is-
sued on Tuesday will force the de-
fendant, Hastings, to pay the
$21,145 in damages to Turner.