 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnson v. Koepke11/30/2004
pondent, respondent's father, and respondent's wife that (1) he was permanently injured in the accident with appellants; (2) he would need future surgery and care for his injury; and (3) his job, job prospects, and his lifestyle were affected by his injury. Because appellants failed to cite to any evidence that does not support the verdict, we cannot say the verdict is "manifestly and palpably" contrary to the evidence on the record. We conclude the district court properly denied appellants' motion for a new trial.
III.
Appellants argue that the evidence presented on the issue of future damages is a "product of speculation, confusion, and the influence of passion and prejudice" and that the district court's refusal to grant remittitur of the future damages award is an abuse of discretion. The district court "exercises discretion in granting or denying remittitur, and appellate courts will not reverse unless there was a clear abuse of discretion." Myers v. Hearth Techs., Inc., 621 N.W.2d 787, 792 (Minn. App. 2001), review denied (Minn. Mar. 13, 2001) (quotation omitted). The use of the remittitur is appropriate to cure an error by the jury regarding damages caused by passion or prejudice if their decision has not affected the other issues in the case. Genzel v. Halvorson, 248 Minn. 527, 529 80 N.W.2d 854, 856 (Minn. 1957).
Respondent produced uncontradicted testimony of his injury , past expenses, and future expenses. Since the verdict is supported by the evidence in the record and there is no evidence that the verdict stemmed from passion or prejudice on the part of the jurors, we conclude the district court did not err in denying remittitur.
Affirmed.
|