 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Young v. Frase11/26/1997
damages in excess of $12,000 as well as by defendants' $75,000 settlement offer. The trial Judge refused to consider such evidence, as neither offer was presented before the jury. We agree with the trial court's approach and hold that, in deciding whether or not to grant additur or a new trial as to damages, a court may consider only the facts that were placed into evidence.
Testimony at trial indicated that Young's pain and suffering may have been less severe than he was contending. Young's fracture did not require surgery or a cast. He was examined in the emergency room and released the same day with a sling around his arm. Furthermore, Dr. Sopa testified that Young's shoulder had healed well and that the permanent limitations caused by the injury did not preclude Young from performing daily activities without pain or medication.
Delaware law observes the "fundamental tenet of American jurisprudence" that the jury is the sole trier of fact responsible for assessing the credibility of witnesses, resolving conflicting testimony and drawing inferences from proven facts. In keeping with that tenet, the trial Judge's review function when presented with a motion for additur is to examine the facts on record and to determine whether a reasonable jury could have reached the result. Accordingly, a court's assessment of whether a jury's award of damages is within a range supported by the evidence must necessarily be based on the evidence presented to the jury and not on facts outside of the jury's purview.
In the instant case, the admissibility of Young's special damages contained in a worker's compensation lien was the subject of pre-trial briefing. Because the parties settled the lien before trial, the issue of admissibility was withdrawn, and Young's special damages were never offered into evidence. The $75,000 settlement offer was not presented to the jury. Nor could it have ben admitted in evidence. The trial Judge acted appropriately in this case by refusing to consider unadmitted and inadmissible facts in reviewing the jury award.
Conclusion
A motion for additur is an expedient but intrusive way of adjusting a jury's award in exceptional cases where the amount of the award is shockingly inadequate. This is not such a case. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
Page 1 2 3 Delaware Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|