Appealing Large Jury Verdicts: Damages, Remittitur, and Excessiveness Review

What Are The Immediate Appellate Risks When A Jury Awards A Substantial Verdict?

When a jury awards a substantial verdict, particularly in personal injury cases without punitive damages, both sides face significant risks. Defendants must convince the trial or superior court that the verdict resulted from an error, such as incorrect jury instructions or inadmissible evidence. Simply arguing that a verdict is too high is insufficient unless it shocks the court’s conscience. For plaintiffs, holding a large verdict requires demonstrating that the jury acted within their rights, relying on permissible evidence and arguments.

What Is A Remittitur And How Does It Differ At The Trial Court Level Versus An Appeal?

A remittitur is a request to reduce a jury’s verdict amount. At the trial court level, a remittitur is considered only if the verdict seems a result of jury bias or trial error. On appeal, it’s challenging to obtain remittitur as appellate courts often defer to the trial court’s judgment. They are unlikely to substitute their judgment unless there was a clear error or miscalculation by the trial court that affected the verdict.

How Does The Constitutional Analysis Of Punitive Damages Influence Appellate Review In Large Verdict Cases?

In cases involving punitive damages, the analysis differs because punitive awards are meant to punish defendants. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that punitive damages should not exceed nine times the compensatory damages, and ideally, only four to five times. Appellate courts ensure that punitive awards fall within these constitutional limits, taking into account the defendant’s net worth and the need to punish without bankrupting them.

What Role Do Comparable Cases Play In Assessing Whether A Verdict Is Within An Acceptable Range?

Comparable cases are crucial in arguing whether a verdict is reasonable. Defendants use them to demonstrate that similar cases resulted in lower verdicts, suggesting the current verdict is excessive. Plaintiffs, conversely, use comparable cases to show that high verdicts are justified under similar circumstances, reinforcing the legitimacy of the jury’s decision.

How Do Standards Of Review Affect The Likelihood Of Reducing Or Upholding A Large Award?

Standards of review significantly impact the outcome of appeals. For punitive damages, courts conduct a de novo review, reassessing the entire case. In general cases, defendants must prove the trial judge’s discretion was abused, which is challenging. The abuse of discretion standard typically favors the verdict winner, making it difficult to overturn a high award unless clear errors are evident.

How Should Trial Teams Build A Damages Record To Withstand Appellate Scrutiny?

Trial teams should meticulously compile all relevant evidence, including medical records, expert testimony on economic losses, and personal accounts of the plaintiff’s condition. Properly admitted evidence forms a solid foundation for the jury’s award, making it harder for opposing parties to argue the verdict is an outlier or unsupported.

Can You Provide An Example Where Appellate Review Significantly Changed A Case Outcome?

An example involves a medical malpractice case where the Superior Court adjusted damages based on improperly admitted evidence of lost wages. Initially, the court reduced the award, but upon further appeal, the Supreme Court reinstated the full verdict. They ruled that the appellate court couldn’t speculate on the jury’s method for determining the award, emphasizing the importance of not intruding on the jury’s decision-making process.

How Should Settlement Strategies Adjust After A Large Award Is Entered, Considering Potential Appeals?

After a large award, settlement strategies should weigh the benefits of immediate payment against the prolonged appellate process. Engaging in settlement discussions before appellate decisions can be advantageous for both sides, as it offers certainty and timeliness. However, if defendants are unwilling to settle, plaintiffs should prepare a robust defense for the appeal, balancing openness to settlement with readiness for a lengthy legal battle.