Burnhauser v. Bumberger

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that because the plaintiff suffered from soft tissue injuries for six months after the accident, which is the type of injury which “normally involve[s] pain and suffering,” the jury should have awarded damages for pain and suffering
• stating that “jury verdicts awarding zero damages are against the weight of the evidence[,] where undisputed medical evidence reveals that the plaintiff has suffered injuries in the accident that were of a type normally associated with pain and suffering.”
• affirming trial court’s grant of a new trial on damages when jury found defendant negligent, both experts agreed that plaintiff suffered injuries in accident, but jury awarded plaintiff only unreimbursed medical expenses
• finding award of no damages for pain and suffering where opposing experts agreed victim suffered soft tissue injuries that would require up to six months to resolve was against the weight of evidence
• finding award of no damages for pain and suffering where opposing experts agreed victim suffered soft tissue injuries that would require up to six months to resolve was against the weight of evidence
• finding award of no damages for pain and suffering where opposing experts agreed that victim suffered soft tissue injuries that would require up to six months to resolve was against the weight of the evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).