Wiltz v. Welch
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
651 F. App'x 270 (2016)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Joseph Wiltz (plaintiff) was rear-ended by Maya Welch (defendant) in a low-speed car accident. Wiltz sued Welch for negligence, seeking damages for past and future medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. Wiltz sought medical treatment after the accident, but he was not diagnosed with an injury caused by the accident. It became apparent at trial that Wiltz was a serial plaintiff who had numerous preexisting injuries caused by a series of previous accidents. Wiltz had failed to disclose his previous accidents and injuries to the doctors who treated him for the fender bender with Welch, and his answers to discovery questions were dishonest and evasive. The jury awarded Wiltz compensatory damages for his past medical expenses, but it did not award general damages for pain and suffering, nor did it award special damages for lost income or future medical expenses. Wiltz moved for a new trial, arguing that the jury’s verdict was inconsistent. The trial court denied Wiltz’s motion, reasoning that a reasonable jury could have found that, although Wiltz had proven that he was entitled to damages for past medical expenses, he had failed to prove that he had experienced pain and suffering. Wiltz appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
