ARK.] CASES DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS Troy L. ADAMS & Mrs. L.L. ADAMS v. Dorothy Mayo PARKER & Roger Kelly MAYO 85-301 708 S.W.2d 617 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered May 5, 1986 1. NEW TRIAL - AVAILABILITY FOR ERROR IN ASSESSMENT OF AMOUNT OF RECOVERY. - A new trial may be granted for "any of the following grounds materially affecting the substantial rights of such party: . . . (5) error in the assessment of the amount of recovery, whether too large or too small. [Ark. R. Civ. P. 591 2. APPEAL & ERROR - REVIEW OF GRANTING OF MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. - Where a motion for new trial is granted, the test on review is whether the trial court abused its discretion. 3. NEW TRIAL - TRIAL JUDGE HAS WIDE DISCRETION. - The trial judge is vested with great discretion in ruling on a motion for a new trial and will not be reversed unless there is a manifest abuse of that discretion. 4. APPEAL & ERROR - MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL --- SHOWING ABUSE MORE DIFFICULT IF MOTION GRANTED. - A showing of abuse of discretion is more difficult when a new trial has been granted because there is less basis for a claim of prejudice by the beneficiary of the verdict which was set aside than by one who has unsuccessfully moved for a new trial. 5. NEW TRIAL - NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO GRANT - VERDICT INSUFFICIENT. - Where evidence was offered that plaintiff's medical bills alone totalled $2,854, it was not a manifest abuse of discretion for the trial court to find an award of $200 was too small. Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District;
2 ADAMS V. PARKER [289 Cite as 289 Ark. 1 (1986) John Holland, Judge; affirmed. Pryor, Robinson & Barry, for appellant. Gean, Gean, & Gean, by: Lawrence W. Fitting, for appellee. JACK HOLT, JR., Chief Justice. The appellant, Troy L. Adams, and the appellee, Roger Kelly Mayo, who were high school students at the time, were involved in a car accident in which both were injured. Mayo and his mother filed suit against Adams and his mother seeking $61,875 for loss of income, loss of a college scholarship, disability, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and property damage. The case was tried before a jury which returned a verdict in Mayo's favor, fixing his damages at $200.00. The trial judge found there was an error in the assessment of damages and granted Mayo's motion for a new trial. It is from that order that this appeal is brought. Our jurisdiction is pursuant to Sup. Ct. R. 29(1)(o). We affirm. [1] Arkansas R. Civ. P. Rule 59 provides that a new trial may be granted for "any of the following grounds materially affecting the substantial rights of such party: . . .(5) error in the assessment of the amount of recovery, whether too large or too small." [2-4] Where a motion for new trial is granted, the test on review is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Ferrell v. Whittington, 271 Ark. 750, 610 S.W.2d 572 (1981). The trial judge is vested with great discretion in ruling on a motion for a new trial and will not be reversed unless there is a manifest abuse of that discretion. Roberts v. Simpson, 275 Ark. 181,628 S.W.2d 308 (1982). We have held that a showing of abuse of discretion is more difficult when a new trial has been granted because there is less basis for a claim of prejudice by the beneficiary of the verdict which was set aside than by one who has unsuccessfully moved for a new trial. Roberts, supra. [5] Here, evidence was offered that Mayo's medical bills alone totalled $2,854. From an examination of the record, we cannot say the trial court's finding, that an award of $200 was too small, was a manifest abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the action of the trial judge in granting a new trial on that basis. Affirmed.
ARK.] 3 PURTLE, J., not participating.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.