Romero v. Langston

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE CONSUELO ROMERO, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. BEVERLY LANGSTON, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 17-0178 FILED 3-22-2018 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV 2013-010850 The Honorable Jo Lynn Gentry, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Bedford Douglass, Jr., Attorney at Law, Mesa By Bedford Douglass, Jr. Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants Law Office of Robert B. Stanewich, Phoenix By Angelo J. Patane Counsel for Defendant/Appellee ROMERO et al. v. LANGSTON Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Maurice Portley1 delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined. P O R T L E Y, Judge: ¶1 Consuelo Romero and her husband, Hector Romero, appeal from the denial of their motion for new trial after a defense jury verdict. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Beverly Langston carelessly drove her car into the back of the car Mrs. Romero was driving in February 2012. Although the investigating officer concluded that Mrs. Romero was injured, she declined the offer for an ambulance. Instead, when Mr. Romero arrived, he drove her to her primary doctor. Dr. Rosen examined her, noted she was suffering from a headache, neck pain, and left shoulder pain, which he attributed to whiplash, and diagnosed her with a grade II concussion. ¶3 The Romeros subsequently sued Langston for negligence. Mrs. Romero sought damages for her injuries and her alleged pain and suffering resulting from the accident, while Mr. Romero sought damages for loss of consortium. They did not request, however, “compensation for property damages or medical expenses.” ¶4 At trial, Langston admitted she drove her car into Mrs. Romero’s car. She disputed that the accident caused Mrs. Romero’s pain and suffering, attributing her pain instead to prior injuries and pre-existing conditions. After the presentation of evidence, instructions and final argument, the jury returned a defense verdict in favor of Langston and against the Romeros. They then filed an unsuccessful motion for new trial. They appeal, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) section 12-2101(A). 1 The Honorable Maurice Portley, Retired Judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, has been authorized to sit in this matter pursuant to Article VI, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution. 2 ROMERO et al. v. LANGSTON Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶5 The Romeros now challenge the denial of their motion for new trial arguing the evidence cannot support the verdict. They also argue that the trial court erred by limiting their voir dire and by incorrectly sustaining an objection during Langston’s cross-examination. A. Sufficiency of the Evidence ¶6 We review the first argument―the denial of the motion for new trial―for an abuse of discretion. State v. Fischer, 242 Ariz. 44, 48, ¶ 10 (2017). A trial court may grant a ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals