Cooke v. Murphy

Summary

The court affirmed the denial of a new trial because the jury could reasonably reject medical testimony based on subjective complaints and the plaintiffs had not conclusively established compensable injury. It also affirmed the award of costs to Murphy because a plaintiff who receives a verdict awarding zero damages has not obtained a judgment and the defendant is the prevailing party. The cross-appeals concerning State Farm's judgment as a matter of law were left undecided as moot.