Court rejects injured woman's argument that first of two collisions caused her damages

Laurie Eichstedt suffered headaches and generalized back pain issues for some time prior to separate car accidents in May and October of 2009. After being rear-ended twice on the same road, and eventually losing her job and requiring back surgery, she sued the two at-fault drivers for damages.  Her case went to trial, where cross-examination revealed several discrepancies in her testimony.  The jury concluded that she had problems but that the May collision didn't cause them.  She argued that the trial judge erred in refusing to direct the jury that the October collision didn't cause her injuries.

The Court of Appeals pointed to the fact that eight different doctors testified regarding a complicated back history that included material that brought EIchstedt's credibility into question.  Under the circumstances, and with the proper standard of review, there was evidence to support the jury verdict and it was upheld.  The judge was not allowed to substitute his judgment for the jury's and all reasonable inferences must be afforded to the jury's conclusions.