McRevy v. Ryan

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DEC 14, 2010
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
____________________________
No. 10-11387
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cv-00508-CG-B
STEPHANIE MCREVY,
SAMANTHA MULKEY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
STEPHEN BLAKE RYAN,
Defendant-Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
______________________________
(December 14, 2010)
Before BLACK, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Stephanie McRevy and Samantha Mulkey appeal the denial of their motion
for a new trial and alternative motion for additur, claiming that the jury’s damage
award in this case was either inconsistent with the evidence or inadequate under
Alabama law. After a careful review of the record in this case and the briefs filed
on appeal, we conclude that the district court’s denial of these motions was
without reversible error.
After a trial on appellants’ negligence claim against the defendant, the jury
returned a general verdict in favor of appellants and awarded each of them
damages in the amount of $5,000. Appellants assert that these awards were
entirely disproportionate to their injury, relying on a case that holds that the
amount of damages must be at least as high as the uncontradicted special damages,
as well as an amount sufficient to make any compensation for pain and suffering.
See Brown v. Foster, 636 So. 2d 468, 469 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994).
In denying appellants’ post-trial motions, however, the district court held
that the evidence at trial as to the extent of appellants injuries and the amount of
their damages was conflicting. Therefore, he concluded that the amount of special
damages was not “uncontradicted.” Our review of the record supports this
conclusion. The opinion testimony of plaintiffs’ witnesses as to special damages
2

-- 2 of 3 --

including the extent of their injuries, causation of their medical conditions, and
other claims was vigorously questioned on cross-examination. The jury was not
required to credit all that was opined.
Accordingly, the Brown case is inapposite and the district court’s
conclusion that the motions for new trial or for additur should be denied was not
error. See Hawkes v. Ayers, 537 F.2d 836, 837 (5 Cir. 1976).th
Accordingly, the denial of the motions for new trial or for additur is
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --