a remand for a new trial, or affirmance conditioned on remittitur, is required when an award "is so high that it would be a denial of justice to permit it to stand"
How later courts described this case
- a remand for a new trial, or affirmance conditioned on remittitur, is required when an award "is so high that it would be a denial of justice to permit it to stand"
- discussing alternate grounds because those grounds could have become the basis for a later appeal
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HAYS, Circuit Judge (dissenting):
I dissent from the order of this court granting a new trial on the issue of damages unless appellee agrees to remit $30,000 of the jury’s award of $55,000.
The denial by the trial court of a motion for a new trial on the ground of the excessiveness of the jury’s award of damages is not to be reversed on appeal unless “the amount [of the jury award] is so high that it would be a denial of justice to permit it to stand.” Dagnello v. Long Island R. R., 289 F.2d 797, 806 (2d Cir. 1961). This formulation was approved by the Supreme Court in Grunenthal v. Long Island R. R., 393 U. S. 156 , 89 S.Ct. 331 , 21 L.Ed.2d 309 (1968), in which the Supreme Court reversed a remittitur granted by this court. “[A] detailed appraisal of the evidence bearing on damages,” id. at 159 , 89 S.Ct. at 333 , indicates that there is no proper ground for setting aside the jury’s verdict.
In deciding “that the approximately $10,000 afforded to [appellee] by a $25,000 judgment is ample compensation for such pain, suffering, and inconvenience . . .” (emphasis added), the court has quite unjustifiably substituted its judgment for that of the jury.
The evidence established that, as a result of the accident, appellee experienced difficulty in performing housework or *1228 .other light labor, that she had to forego certain community work in which she had formerly engaged, that from time to time she suffered from pain and that she would continue to have such pain. These items cannot be precisely measured. There is no justification for this court’s setting aside the award of the jury because the court believes that a smaller sum would be “ample.” The award does not constitute a denial of justice nor does it shock the conscience. Larger awards for pain and suffering have recently been upheld by this court in similar cases. See Friedman v. N. B. C. Motorcycle Imports, Inc., 452 F.2d 1215 (2d Cir. 1971); Benazet v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R., 442 F.2d 694 (2d Cir. 1971); Fuchstadt v. United States, 442 F.2d 400 (2d Cir. 1971).
I would sustain the district court’s refusal to grant a new trial.