Juliano v. Lenhard.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
June 14, 2002 W. C hristophe r Com ponov o, Esqu ire 1225 King Street, Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19899 Jame s J. Hale y, Jr., Esqu ire 1716 Wawaset Street P.O. Box 188 Wilmington, DE 19899 RE: Kristina M. Juliano v. Thomas M. Lenhard C.A. No. 98C-11-180 WCC Submitted: May 22, 2002 Decided: June 14, 2002 On P laintiff s M otion fo r New trial. Dea r Cou nsel: It is disappointing that you have not been able to convince your clients of the bene fits of finding a middle ground based upon the jury deliberation information provided by the C ourt. I appre ciate Mr. C omp onov o s letter in dicating all efforts h ave b een fu lly explored and a resolution is not possible. I have delayed deciding this motion hoping reaso nable minds would prevail. Since that does not app ear to be th e case, the Court will grant a new trial, but only as it relates to the issu e of da mag es. Th e liability v erdict w ill remain as decided by the jury. There is no controversy between the parties that the plaintiff sustained some injury in the ac ciden t. Wh ile the ex tent an d natu re of tha t injury was contested, there was no medical evidence presented that would support a finding of zero damages. Consistent with the Supreme Court opinion in Maier v. Santucc i,1 a jury m ay no t ignore facts that are uncontroverted and against the weight of undisputed medical testimony. The only verdict that would be consistent with th e eviden ce wo uld be the award ing of som e mo netary award. Since this did not occur, the Court believes the only fair way to resolve this error is to allow a new trial limited to the issue of damages. Wh ile in some cases the Court may correct the error of zero damages by way of an additu r, the C ourt de clines to resolve the issue by that ma nner in this c ase. First, there is no motion requesting such action and second ly, this is simp ly not a ca se wh ere the jury clearly provided a grossly inadequate compensation w hich can be made just by adding dollars to the v erdict. 2 What is the appropriate damage award is still in question except to the de gree th at a zero awa rd is inap propria te. The Cou rt does not believe this is an appro priate case to substitu te its judg men t as to damages and remove from the jury their funda men tal role in d ecidin g wh at is fair an d just rev iewin g the fa cts of the case. O nly in an unusual case should an additur be rendered by the Court, and this simply is not one of those cases. Since the case will be lim ited to d ama ges, I am sugg esting th at we attem pt to sched ule the ca se for th is upc omin g fall. The best date for the Court would be November 25, 2002. Please let me know your availability. IT IS SO ORDERED. Sincerely yours, Judge William C. Ca rpenter, Jr. WC Cjr:tw p cc: Christina Yeager - Case Manager 1 2 1979). Del. Supr. 697 A.2d 747 (1997) Mills v. Telenczak, 345 A.2d 424 (Del. 19 75). Storey v. Camper, 401 A.2d 458 (De l.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
