Willman v. Wall3/14/2000
party must show that the verdict, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, was glaringly unwarranted and that some trial error or misconduct of the prevailing party was responsible for the prejudicing the jury." Id. Mr. Wall has failed to demonstrate that trial court error or misconduct of Mr. Willman was responsible for prejudicing the jury. He suggests that the exclusion of Erica's testimony regarding the speed of Mr. Willman's vehicle at the time of the accident constituted trial court error and that without such evidence, his own testimony concerning the speed of Mr. Willman's vehicle was uncorroborated, and, therefore, the jury was biased against him. As previously discussed in point one above, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Erica's testimony on the issue of the speed of Mr. Willman's vehicle. Having failed to show that trial court error was responsible for the $180,000 verdict, Mr. Wall was not entitled to a new trial. The verdict is, therefore, reviewed for simple excessiveness.
Remittitur may be ordered where the jury errs by awarding a verdict that is simply too bountiful under the evidence. Id. A new trial is not required because the jury is culpable only of an honest mistake as to the nature and extent of injuries, not of misconduct. Id. Remittitur is appropriate "if, after reviewing the evidence in support of the jury's verdict, the court finds that the jury's verdict is excessive because the amount of the verdict exceeds fair and reasonable compensation for plaintiff's injuries and damages." Section 537.068, RSMo 1994.
No precise formula exists for determining whether a verdict is excessive, and each case must be considered on its own facts. Seabaugh v. Milde Farms, Inc., 816 S.W.2d 202, 211 (Mo. banc 1991). Ultimately, the test is what amount fairly and reasonably compensates the plaintiff for the injuries sustained. Id. Consideration is given to the nature and extent of the injuries, diminished earning capacity, economic conditions, plaintiff's age, and a comparison of the compensation awarded in cases of comparable injury . Id.
In this case, substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict. Mr. Willman sustained a herniated disk from the February 1997 automobile accident. He incurred medical bills totaling $8,427. Future surgeries on his neck and wrist were estimated to cost $23,500 and $8,000, respectively. Mr. Willman estimated that he would lose $10,000 in wages if he had the surgeries. Evidence was presented that at the time of trial, Mr. Willman continued to experience range of motion difficulties, neck stiffness, and pain, was less physically active, and had some difficulty in performing his job as a plumber. The fair market value of Mr. Willman's pickup was $6,000 to $7,000 prior to the accident and $100 after the accident. Based on the evidence of Mr. Willman's injuries, expenses, future expenses, pain, and property damage, the $180,000 verdict was not excessive. Moreover, the verdict was comparable with the compensation awarded in other cases. See, e.g., Emery v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 439 (Mo. banc 1998); Seabaugh v. Milde Farms, Inc., 816 S.W.2d 202 (Mo. banc 1991); Stradford v. Caudillo, 972 S.W.2d 483 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998). Remittitur, therefore, was not appropriate. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Wall's motion for new trial or remittitur. Points two and three are denied.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
|