## Facts

- Ashley D. Gunno was injured in a September 13, 2011 automobile collision when Kevin C. McNair turned in front of her vehicle at an intersection, causing a multi-vehicle crash and significant vehicle damage.
- Gunno received emergency treatment and reported immediate neck and back pain, followed by continuing pain that affected sleep and daily functioning.
- She treated with an orthopedic specialist and pursued conservative care including physical therapy and a TENS unit, but reported only temporary relief.
- Gunno underwent extensive chiropractic treatment; the chiropractor documented decreased range of motion and muscle spasms and testified the accident caused a permanent injury with continuing flare-ups.
- She later received trigger-point injections that provided incomplete relief and continued home treatment.
- Gunno and her husband testified about ongoing pain and limitations.
- McNair’s medical expert conceded Gunno was injured in the accident but disputed the extent and attributed ongoing complaints largely to subjective reports and a later fall.
- For strategic reasons, Gunno did not introduce medical bills and did not seek damages for past medical expenses or lost wages, leaving the jury to consider primarily non-economic damages.

## Issues

1. Whether a verdict finding the defendant’s negligence proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury but awarding zero damages is internally inconsistent and against the weight of the evidence where the record shows at least some compensable harm.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for new trial challenging that zero-damages verdict.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the order denying a new trial.
- The court held the special verdict was internally inconsistent because it found proximate injury yet awarded no damages.
- The court remanded for further proceedings, effectively requiring a new trial limited to damages.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court abuses its discretion by refusing to set aside a verdict that is internally inconsistent or clearly unsupported by the evidence.
- When a jury finds that a defendant’s negligence proximately caused a plaintiff’s injury, and the evidence establishes at least minimal compensable harm (including pain and suffering), an award of zero damages is defective.
- A plaintiff’s decision not to present medical bills or pursue economic losses does not eliminate the possibility of non-economic damages once injury and causation are found.

## Conclusion

Because the jury expressly found that McNair’s negligence proximately caused Gunno’s injury and the record contained unrebutted evidence of at least some pain and impairment, a zero-damages award could not be reconciled with the liability and injury findings; the denial of a new trial was reversed and the case remanded for a damages retrial.


Gunno v. McNair, No. 15-0825, 2016 WL 6805006 (W. Va. Nov. 17, 2016)