QUINTERO v. McDONALD

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 33287.

Attorney(S)

Leo P. Flangas, Las Vegas, for Appellant. Jones Williams, Las Vegas, for Respondent.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Appellant Jacqueline Quintero filed a personal injury lawsuit against respondent Jerry McDonald and Dan McKennery following a motor vehicle accident in a commercial parking lot. Quintero was a passenger in a vehicle operated by McKennery, which was struck from the rear by McDonald's vehicle. Both drivers were attempting to exit marked parking spaces. The collision caused minor vehicle damage. Quintero sought medical treatment for alleged neck and back injuries, primarily receiving chiropractic care intermittently over three months. She settled her claim against McKennery pre-trial for $1,200 and proceeded to trial against McDonald. The jury found both McDonald and McKennery at fault but awarded Quintero no damages. The district court denied Quintero's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, leading to this appeal which focuses solely on the jury's failure to award damages.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the jury's failure to award damages despite finding liability was supported by substantial evidence.
Whether the district court erred in denying appellant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial based on the absence of damages awarded.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Quintero argued that the jury erred by awarding no damages despite liability being found.
She relied on a stipulation admitting her medical bills into evidence.
She emphasized the respondent’s failure to present expert testimony to challenge causation.
She contended her evidence of damages was uncontroverted and sufficient to warrant damages.

Respondent's Arguments

The defense highlighted evidence that Quintero continued normal activities such as housekeeping and babysitting after the accident.
They pointed to lapses in her chiropractic treatment and her involvement in a prior accident causing similar injuries.
They challenged the extent and causation of her injuries through cross-examination of appellant’s witnesses.
Although not presenting expert testimony, the defense controverted the damage claims through witness testimony and evidence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Prahbu v. Levine, 112 Nev. 1538, 930 P.2d 103 (1996)	Substantial evidence standard for upholding jury findings on tort damages.	Used to affirm that the jury’s refusal to award damages was supported by substantial evidence.
Yamaha Motor Co. v. Arnoult, 114 Nev. 233, 955 P.2d 661 (1998)	Deference to jury’s weighing of conflicting evidence and drawing favorable inferences for prevailing party.	Supported the court’s refusal to reweigh evidence and upheld the jury’s discretion in awarding no damages.
Jaramillo v. Blackstone, 101 Nev. 316, 704 P.2d 1084 (1985)	Grounds for granting a new trial based on manifest disregard of jury instructions.	Referenced to confirm that no manifest disregard of instructions occurred here.
McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 825 P.2d 571 (1992)	Credibility of witnesses and weight of testimony is exclusively for the trier of fact.	Used to support the conclusion that the jury could reasonably disbelieve appellant’s testimony on pain and causation.
Uniroyal Goodrich Tire v. Mercer, 111 Nev. 318, 890 P.2d 785 (1995)	Non-appealability of order denying judgment notwithstanding the verdict.	Explained appellate treatment of the case as an appeal from judgment and denial of new trial.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized the jury’s broad discretion in awarding damages and emphasized that such findings must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. Although the jury found McDonald liable, it awarded no damages, which the court found reasonable given the evidence. The court noted that while Quintero presented medical bills totaling $1,885, she failed to conclusively prove the reasonableness or necessity of the treatment. The defense successfully challenged the extent and causation of injuries through cross-examination, revealing pre-existing injuries and inconsistent treatment. The court highlighted that the jury was entitled to weigh witness credibility and could reasonably disbelieve appellant’s claims of pain and suffering. The court also observed that the jury was not compelled to assign probative value to stipulated evidence or uncontradicted medical bills. Given these factors, the court concluded the jury’s refusal to award damages was within its proper discretion and affirmed the district court’s denial of a new trial.

Holding and Implications

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

The court upheld the jury's discretion to find liability without awarding damages, affirming the denial of appellant's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial. The decision directly affects the parties by finalizing the outcome of the negligence claim against McDonald but does not establish new legal precedent beyond the application of existing standards for jury findings and appellate review.

Show full summary ...

JACQUELINE QUINTERO, Appellant, vs. JERRY McDONALD, Respondent.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This appeal concerns an action for personal injuries brought by appellant Jacqueline Quintero against respondent Jerry McDonald and Dan McKennery. Although the jury found both McDonald and McKennery at fault, the jury awarded Quintero no damages. The district court denied Quintero's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The sole assignment of error on appeal arises from the failure of the jury to award damages.

FACTS

Quintero alleged below that she was injured when a motor vehicle operated by McKennery, in which she was a passenger, was struck from the rear by a vehicle operated by McDonald. It is undisputed that the accident occurred when both drivers were attempting to exit marked parking spaces in a commercial parking lot. The impact caused only minor damage to both vehicles.

Shortly after the accident, Quintero retained an attorney and thereafter sought medical treatment for her alleged injuries. She sporadically underwent chiropractic treatment for approximately three months.

Quintero thereafter filed her action against McKennery and McDonald, primarily claiming neck and back injuries. Quintero entered into a pre-trial settlement of her claim against McKennery in exchange for a monetary payment of $1,200.00.

Quintero proceeded to trial on her claim against McDonald. She presented evidence of severe neck and back pain following the accident, a formal diagnosis of "whiplash," and medical expenses of $1,885.00. Defense evidence indicated that Quintero continued to perform housekeeping and babysitting chores following the accident, confirmed several lapses in her chiropractic treatment, and confirmed her involvement in a separate accident in which she sustained similar injuries the previous year.

The jury apportioned liability as follows: 65% to McDonald; 35% to McKennery; and 0% to Quintero. The jury, however, awarded no damages. Quintero filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial. The district court denied the motion, and this appeal followed.

NRS 41.141(3) prohibits apportionment of comparative negligence to settling parties. Thus, absent agreement by the parties, the issue of McKennery's negligence should not have been submitted to the jury. This, however, does not affect the resolution of this matter on appeal.

An order denying a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is not appealable. See Uniroyal Goodrich Tire v. Mercer, 111 Nev. 318, 320 n. 1, 890 P.2d 785, 790 n. 1 (1995) (citing Ross v. Giacomo, 97 Nev. 550, 635 P.2d 298 (1981)). However, we will treat this matter as an appeal from the judgment entered in favor of the respondent and from the refusal of the district court to grant a new trial. See NRAP 3A(b).

DISCUSSION

A jury is permitted wide latitude in awarding tort damages, and the jury's findings will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. See Prahbu v. Levine, 112 Nev. 1538, 1543, 930 P.2d 103, 107 (1996); see also Yamaha Motor Co. v. Arnoult, 114 Nev. 233, 238, 955 P.2d 661, 664 (1998). Substantial evidence is "that which `a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Prahbu, 112 Nev. at 1543, 930 P.2d at 107 (quoting State, Emp. Security v. Hilton Hotels, 102 Nev. 606, 608, 729 P.2d 497, 498 (1986)). This court has stated that it "is not at liberty to weigh the evidence anew, and where conflicting evidence exists, all favorable inferences must be drawn towards the prevailing party." Yamaha, 114 Nev. at 238, 955 P.2d at 664.

A new trial may be granted if there has been a manifest disregard by the jury of the instructions of the court. See Jaramillo v. Blackstone, 101 Nev. 316, 318, 704 P.2d 1084, 1085 (1985).

Prior to closing arguments at trial, the district court granted McDonald's motion to dismiss Quintero's claims for future damages. Thus, the damages issue for the jury was limited to special and general damages sustained prior to trial proceedings. As stated, the jury refused to award damages in any amount.

In denying Quintero's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, for a new trial, the district court stated:

The jury decision is reasonable in light of facts brought out during trial. [The jurors] were free to conclude that although there was liability, there were no damages.

Quintero contends that the district court erred by refusing to grant judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial in light of the failure by the jury to award damages. In this connection, Quintero relies on a stipulation to the admission into evidence of her medical bills, that McDonald failed to procure the testimony of an expert, and that her evidence of damages was uncontroverted. We disagree and conclude that the jury's verdict is supported by substantial evidence.

As noted, Quintero presented evidence that she incurred $1,885.00 in medical expenses. However, she offered no conclusive evidence of the reasonableness of the expenses or the necessity of the treatment. Although McDonald did not present expert testimony challenging causation, testimony elicited from Quintero's witnesses on cross-examination controverted Quintero's claim as to the extent of her injuries. Further, cross-examination of Quintero's evidence revealed that Quintero suffered from a pre-existing back injury, which could have caused her symptoms.

The credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony is within the sole province of the trier of fact. See McNair v. State, 108 Nev. 53, 56, 825 P.2d 571, 573 (1992). We conclude that a reasonable jury could have disbelieved Quintero's testimony concerning her alleged pain and suffering and, thus, could have reasonably inferred that she was not injured as a proximate result of the accident. This is particularly true given the confirmed lapses in medical treatment following the accident and evidence of her post-accident activities, including child-care, cleaning, and swimming. Finally, even though the defense either stipulated to or did not controvert her damage evidence with independent witnesses, the jury was not bound to assign any particular probative value to any evidence presented.

We therefore hold that, on the facts of this case, the jury was within its proper discretion in finding the accident was entirely the fault of the defendants, but refusing to award damages.

We therefore affirm the district court's refusal to order a new trial.