from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (C.P.C. No.
Donahey & Defossez, and Curtis M. Fifner, for appellants.
Ritzler, Coughlin & Paglia, and Joseph G. Ritzler, for
1} Plaintiffs-appellants, Jamie and Nathan Koerper,
appeal from a judgment entered by the Franklin County Court
of Common Pleas denying their motion for new trial pursuant
to Civ.R. 59. Because the trial court properly denied
appellants' motion for new trial, we affirm.
2} On July 14, 2017, appellants filed a complaint
alleging negligence and loss of consortium against
defendant-appellee, Norma Szabo, arising from a February 24,
2014 motor vehicle accident. On that date, Jamie was driving a
minivan and was struck from behind by a vehicle driven by
appellee; Jamie suffered injuries as a result of the
accident At the November 2017 trial, appellee
stipulated to breach of duty; accordingly, the only issues
tried to the jury were proximate cause and damages.
3} Following trial, the jury found by a
preponderance of the evidence that appellee's negligence
was the proximate cause of Jamie's injuries. The jury
awarded Jamie damages totaling $15, 000; $10, 000 for past
economic damages and $5, 000 for past non-economic damages.
The jury awarded $0 for future economic and non-economic
damages and $0 for loss of consortium.
4} On December 20, 2017, appellants filed a motion
for new trial pursuant to Civ.R. 59(A)(1), (4), (6) and (9).
On August 30, 2018, the trial court filed a decision and
entry denying appellants' motion.
5} Appellants have timely appealed from the trial
court's denial of their motion for new trial and set
forth the following four assignments of error for our review:
. The Trial Court Abused its Discretion by Permitting the
Jury to Hear Speculative Testimony from Dr. Kerner[.]
. The Trial Court Abused its Discretion by Refusing to
Give Appellants' Successive Tortfeasor Jury Instruction
as an Injury that is Caused or Aggravated by a Subsequent
Treating Medical Provider Relates Back to the Original
. The Trial Court Erred by Refusing to Grant a New Trial
Because the Jury's Verdict was Inadequate and the
Judgment was Against the Manifest Weight of the Evidence[.]
. The Trial Court Abused its Discretion as a New Trial
should have been Granted due to Irregularity in the
Proceedings by the Court, and Errors of Law that were
Perpetuated Throughout Trial[.]
6} In their first assignment of error, appellants
contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion
for new trial pursuant to Civ.R. 59(A)(1) and (9). More
particularly, appellants argue that the trial court erred in
permitting appellants' expert medical witness to be
cross-examined on alternative causes of Jamie's injuries.
7} Civ.R. 59(A)(1) permits a new trial on all or
part of the issues if the moving party demonstrates
"[i]rregularity in the proceedings of the court, jury,
magistrate, or prevailing party, or any order of the court or
magistrate, or abuse of discretion, by which an aggrieved
party was prevented from having a fair trial." "In
the context of a motion for a new trial, an
'irregularity' is 'a departure from the due,
orderly and established mode of proceeding therein, where a
party, with no fault on his part, has been deprived of some
right or benefit otherwise available to him.'"
Ellinger v. Ho, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-1079,
201o-Ohio-553, ¶ 63, quoting Meyer v.
Srivastava, 141 Ohio App.3d 662, 667 (2001). Disposition
of a motion for new trial on the ground set forth in Civ.R.
59(A)(1) is a decision committed to the sound discretion of
the trial court, and a reviewing court will not reverse such
a ruling absent an abuse of discretion. Id., citing
Harris v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 116 Ohio St.3d 139,
2007-Ohio-5587, ¶ 35. An abuse of discretion implies
that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or
unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d
217, 219 (1983).
8} In addition, Civ.R. 59(A)(9) permits a new trial
based on an "[e]rror of law occurring at the trial and
brought to the attention of the trial court by the party
making the application." An appellate court's review
of a motion pursuant to Civ.R. 59(A)(9) is de ...