Albert v. Hampton
Iowa District Court
2003 WL 24054824 (2003)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
In 1997, Robin Albert (plaintiff) injured her back in a car wreck. Albert suffered headaches, back pain, and hip pain, all of which were alleviated by a series of chiropractic treatments that ended in April 1999. In July 1999, Hampton (defendant) sideswiped Albert’s car. The impact re-activated the injuries from Albert’s initial car wreck. To alleviate her pain, Albert again sought treatment from a chiropractor, incurring medical bills as well as lost wages for her visits to the chiropractor. Further, Albert’s pain prevented her from engaging in many of her hobbies and normal daily activities. Albert was able to continue working, but her long commute and long work hours exacerbated her pain. Dr. Nolz, Albert’s chiropractor, testified that the accident had caused Albert to suffer a 10-percent permanent partial disability. Dr. Nolz also testified that Albert’s pain could not be permanently eliminated but that it could be temporarily alleviated with twice-weekly chiropractic treatments costing $33 per visit. Albert sued Hampton for negligence. After finding that Albert was entitled to $3,721 in past medical expenses, $590 in lost wages, and $1,040 for past pain and loss of body and mind, the court considered Albert’s damages for future medical expenses, pain, and loss of body and mind.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dillard, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.