WILLIAMS v. ROBERTSON GILCHRIST CONST. CO.
3/12/1990
Heard Jan. 23, 1990.
Decided March 12, 1990.
This is a wrongful death case in which the jury returned a We affirm.
ISSUE
The sole issue of merit is whether a trial judge, in granting a motion for a new trial nisi additur, must make an express finding that the verdict is grossly inadequate.
FACTS
There are only a few pertinent facts relating to this appeal. Williams called Dr. Oliver Wood, an expert economist, who testified that the total economic loss suffered by the deceased's beneficiaries was $170,590. The parties stipulated that the funeral bill was $4,972. Williams offered several witnesses who testified to the non-economic losses such as loss of love and affection, companionship, advice, etc. This testimony is uncontradicted.
Williams' attorney made a timely postverdict motion for a new trial nisi additur on the ground that the jury obviously returned a verdict based only upon the economic damages. The trial judge issued the following order;
THE COURT: Thank you, counselor. The verdict, if it
were not the exact figure as set forth by the economist
for economic loss of $170,590, I could not say was
unreasonable, if it were not for the fact that there was an
economic loss. But in view of the fact that the figure
mirrors or is exactly the figure of the economic damage,
it would be my conclusion that the jury did not award
damage for the funeral bill or anything for the loss of
companionship, loss of emotions, loss of the grief and
sorrow and the other intangible elements of damage. So,
I am going to grant a new trial additur, under the terms
of which the defendant is required to pay the full sum of
$225,000 or grant a new trial to the plaintiff.
DISCUSSION
A trial judge may grant a new trial nisi additur upon a finding that the verdict is so inadequate that it must be determined to be the result of the jury's disregard of the facts or the trial judge's instructions. The order must contain compelling reasons in accord with this rule. Craven v. Cunningham, 292 S.C. 441, 357 S.E.2d 23 (1987); Haskins v. Fairfield Elec. Co-op., 283 S.C. 229, 321 S.E.2d 185 (Ct. App. 1984).
We reject Robertson Gilchrist's argument that the jury simply reduced the amount of economic loss and then added the funeral bill and what it found to be the proper amount for non-economic losses. We hold that although possible, this is most improbable and highly conjectural. On the other hand, the trial judge's reasoning points to the exact sameness of the economic losses as testified by Dr. Wood and the amount of the verdict. He then with good reasoning, we hold, concluded that the jury disregarded the testimony about the funeral bill and noneconomic losses; we concur in this conclusion. As Justice Finney wrote in Craven v. Cunningham, supra, the finding of gross inadequacy must be determined to be the result of the jury's disregard of the facts or the trial judge's instructions. This is exactly what happened in this case. The trial judge's conclusion that the jury had disregarded the testimony pertaining to the funeral bill and non-economic losses, we hold, is tantamount to finding that the verdict was grossly inadequate.
The appellate courts of this state, to our knowledge, have not required a trial judge in granting a motion for a new trial nisi additur to make an express finding that the verdict is grossly inadequate. It is sufficient, we hold, that the court articulate the reasons it considers the award of the jury to be grossly inadequate. We hold that the order in this case complies with that rule.
It is to be r
Page 1 2 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys