Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Queen v. Logan

January 9, 2007

WILLIAM E. QUEEN, ET. AL., PLAINTIFFS
v.
TIMOTHY L. LOGAN, SR., ET. AL., DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Timothy S. Hogan United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

The parties consented to final disposition of this action by the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 5). On December 18, 2006, this matter came before the Court for a jury trial on Plaintiffs' claims of negligence and loss of consortium. On December 20, 2006, at the close of Plaintiffs' case, Defendant moved this Court for judgment as a matter of law as to Plaintiffs' claims for medical expenses, future medical expenses and future wage loss. Defendant moved this Court to strike front pay as an element of Plaintiff's damages. Plaintiffs, not surprisingly, oppose Defendant's motions. The Court heard arguments on Defendant's motions. For the reasons set forth more fully below, and in accordance with this Court's ruling from the bench, Defendant's motions are DENIED.

Defendant argued that, in light of the Ohio Supreme Court's recent reversal of the Ohio Appellate Court's decision in Robinson v. Bates, 828 N.E.2d 657 (Ohio Ct. App. April 22, 2005), the Court should allow the jury to consider only the discounted amount of medical expenses paid by Plaintiff's insurance. Counsel for both parties agreed that this issue could be addressed through post trial motions if necessary. The Court found that this issue should not be the subject of a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, rather, this issue is more appropriately the subject of a charge conference between counsel and the Court. Moreover, in light of the jury's verdict in favor of Defendant, which was issued on December 21, 2006, Defendant's motion has been rendered moot and is denied as such.

Defendant also argued that the evidence was insufficient to support damage awards for future medical expenses and future wage loss. Plaintiffs contend that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support awards for both. However, while the Court agreed with Plaintiff's argument, Defendant's motion with respect to such has been rendered moot by the jury's subsequent verdict and is denied as such.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT

1) Defendant's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 be DENIED as MOOT.

SO ORDERED.

20070109

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.