Majczyk v. Oesch

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a jury was entitled to conclude pain was not compensable where accident was minor
• affirming the denial of a new trial because the jury did not have to believe that the plaintiff's discomfort was compensable
• ApplyingDavis, without addressing objective-subjective distinction, to hold that it is within purview of jury to discount alleged soft-tissue injury stemming from five-mile-per-hour “bump” at traffic light.
• “[W]hile the jury may have concluded that appellant suffered some painful inconvenience for a few days or weeks after the accident, it may also have concluded that appellant's discomfort was the sort of transient rub of life for which compensation is not warranted.”
• “[T]he question before us is whether a jury may find for the defendant despite his or her obvious negligence because it does not believe that plaintiff’s pain and suffering, if any, are compensable. We conclude that such a determination is well within the province of the jury.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).