 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Green v. Fritz12/15/2003
the jury's award of $2000.00 for a total award of $14000.00.
ISSUE
Did the trial court improperly grant Green's motion for a new trial nisi additur?
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A trial judge may grant a new trial nisi additur whenever he or she finds the amount of the verdict to be merely inadequate. Patterson v. Reid, 318 S.C. 183, 185, 456 S.E.2d 436, 438 (Ct. App. 1995). While the granting of such a motion rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, substantial deference must be afforded to the jury's determination of damages. Evans v. Taylor Made Sandwich Co., 337 S.C. 95, 100, 522 S.E.2d 350, 352 (Ct. App. 1999). To this end, a judge must offer compelling reasons for invading the jury's province by granting a motion for additur. Bailey v. Peacock, 318 S.C. 13, 14, 455 S.E.2d 690, 691 (1995). We will only reverse if the trial judge abused his discretion in deciding a motion for new trial nisi additur to the extent that an error of law results. Patterson, 318 S.C. at 185, 456 S.E.2d at 438.
LAW/ANALYSIS
Fritz argues the trial judge erred when he granted the motion without articulating compelling reasons. We agree.
A trial judge may grant a new trial nisi additur when a jury's verdict is inadequate. Bailey, 318 S.C. at 14, 455 S.E.2d at 691. However, to grant such relief, the trial judge must state compelling reasons for invading the province of the jury. Krepps v. Ausen, 324 S.C. 597, 607, 479 S.E.2d 290, 295 (Ct. App. 1996). Similarly, if inapplicable grounds are given for granting additur, the order fails by error of law. Bailey, 318 S.C. at 14-5, 455 S.E.2d at 692 (explaining impropriety of granting additur or remittitur on the basis of the "thirteenth juror" doctrine). Here, the trial court provided no compelling reasons for invading the province of the jury in granting additur.
Where, as here, the evidence of damages is disputed, the mere listing of Green's claimed damages by the trial judge in his order does not constitute compelling reasons for invading the jury's province. The order offers no reasons upon which we can review the appropriateness of usurping the jury's decision on damages.
In support of the grant of a new trial nisi additur and his conclusory statement that the verdict was grossly inadequate, Green argues that the jury ignored evidence of bills and "undisputed pain and suffering," thereby demonstrating "passion, caprice, prejudice particularly, corruption or some other improper motive." If indeed the jury's verdict was motivated by caprice, passion, or prejudice, the appropriate remedy would be for a new trial absolute. Waring v. Johnson, 341 S.C. 248, 257, 533 S.E.2d 906, 911 (Ct. App. 2000) ("If the amount of the verdict is so grossly inadequate or excessive that it shocks the conscience of the court and clearly indicates the amount was the result of passion, caprice, prejudice, partiality, corruption or some other improper motives, the trial judge is required to grant a new trial absolute."). Green's only post-trial motion was for a new trial nisi additur.
We find the trial judge abused his discretion in granting a new trial nisi additur without stating compelling reasons. The trial judge's order is therefore reversed and the jury verdict is reinstated.
REVERSED.
HOWARD and KITTREDGE, JJ., concur.
Page 1 2 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|