A Carluzzo Rochkind & Smith note: Following is an excellent article by Virginia Lawyers Weekly. We did not handle this case, but it brings up important points your personal injury lawyers should be familiar with. For more than 30 years our personal injury lawyers in Manassas have helped clients with such matters in Prince William County, Fairfax County, Woodbridge, and throughout Northern Virginia. If you have any questions or would like to schedule an appointment, please contact our law firm at (703) 361-0776.
Negligence: Accident victims receive zero-dollar verdict
By Virginia Lawyers Weekly – 6/16/2024
Where a father and son injured in a vehicle accident received a zero-dollar verdict, it was affirmed. The burden was on the victims to prove causation, and the jury either found they did not meet that burden or the jury was unable to estimate damages based on their insufficient evidence.
Background
This case stems from Sara Lou Fackina’s vehicle colliding with Virgil Naff Jr.’s vehicle with Virgil Atlee Naff as a passenger. Following a trial, the jury returned a zero-dollar verdict.
The Naffs argue that the trial court erred by refusing to set aside the jury’s zero-dollar verdict because (1) Fackina admitted liability and made a judicial admission that the injuries were caused by the accident, and (2) Instruction C stated that the jury was only to determine the amount of damages and zero is not an amount. Based on this, the Naffs assert that the trial court should have awarded a new trial limited to damages only.
Admission
Fackina’s counsel did state that the “injuries were pretty minor that these folks received from the accident” and suggested a monetary amount the jury could award. She also argued in closing, however, that the Naffs’ injuries weren’t caused by the accident. Thus, not only were Fackina’s counsel’s statements not a “distinct, formal, [and] binding” admission of causation or damages but, in fact, they were “intentional and unambiguous” statements denying causation and damages. Therefore, the court is not persuaded by the Naffs’ first argument.
Jury instruction
The Naffs next argue that the jury’s verdict of zero damages is contrary to the jury instructions, verdict form and law. The court disagrees. In multiple personal injury cases, Virginia courts have declared that when a jury could have found the defendant’s negligence during a car accident was not the cause of a plaintiff’s injuries, a zero-damages verdict is permissible.
Here, the burden was on the Naffs to prove causation and the jury either found they did not meet that burden, or the jury was unable to estimate damages based on the Naffs’ insufficient evidence. Though father received care at the YMCA, he never saw a medical doctor specifically for his neck pain. When a doctor did examine his neck years after the accident, the doctor determined that it was supple.
Father did not present any medical bills concerning his injury. He testified that it hurt to turn his head to both sides, which contradicted his earlier declarations that it only hurt to turn his neck to the left side. Further, the jury could have accepted Fackina’s argument that father had an improper motive in bringing up his neck pain two years after the accident, which was close in time to the lawsuit.
In terms of son’s injuries, at the accident he stated that he was okay and attended school the same day. Again, no medical bills were introduced, no medical witnesses testified and son did not see a doctor immediately after the accident. A doctor did advise son to stop playing basketball due to his back pain, but this occurred before the accident. Most significantly, he had a pre-existing injury, and the jury could have found his back pain stemmed from this as opposed to the accident.
Although the trial court believed the evidence demonstrated that Fackina’s negligence caused the Naffs’ injuries and granted or denied the proposed jury instructions on that basis, causation was for the jury to determine, as stated in the instructions. Based on these instructions and the evidence presented, the jury could have found that Fackina’s negligence did not cause the Naffs’ injuries or that the Naffs did not present sufficient facts and circumstances to permit the jury to make a reasonable estimate of damages.
It is true that Instruction C omitted the phrase “if any” and that the Supreme Court emphasized this phrase in both prior cases. The Naffs suggest that the removal of “if any” compels a jury to award him some dollar figure. This premise is undercut by the simple conclusion that an amount of damages can include “zero.” Instruction D requires a jury to return a zero-dollar verdict in the event that the Naffs failed to satisfy their burden. By following the instructions, the jury properly interpreted zero as an appropriate amount given the evidence they heard.
Affirmed.
Naff v. Fackina, Record Nos. 0589-23-3, 0590-23-3, May 28, 2024. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Ortiz). From the Circuit Court of Bedford County (Updike). Sidney H. Kirstein for appellants. Kathleen T. Allen (Glenn Robinson Cathey Memmer & Skaff, on brief), for appellee. VLW 024-7-156. 11 pp.
If you are in need of experienced personal injury lawyers who get results, please contact us online or by calling 703-361-0776.
Personal injury lawyers in Manassas serving Prince William County, Fairfax County, Woodbridge, and all of Northern Virginia.
