This court will reverse the trial court's denial of a motion for new trial based upon a claim of inadequacy of damages "`only when the amount of the award evidences prejudice, passion or partiality on the part of the jury or where the verdict appears to be an oversight [or] mistake, or [rest upon] consideration of an improper element.'" Anthony v. Allstate Ins. Co., 790 A.2d 535, 537 (D.C. 2002) (quoting Romer v. District of Columbia, 449 A.2d 1097, 1099 (D.C. 1982)). We have said that "`[u]sing that standard, the circumstances are necessarily rare when the trial court's decision upholding the jury verdict will be reversed.'"
I. FINDINGS OF FACTA. Delois GillespieId.B. Debbie DugarII. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 28 U.S.C. ยง 1346 Richards v.United States 369 U.S. 1 District of Columbia v.Barriteau, 399 A.2d 563 566 Calva-Cerqueira v. United States 281 F. Supp. 2d 279 294 citing Wood v. Day 859 F.2d 1490 1493 Romer v. District of Columbia 449 A.2d 1097 1100 Id.A. Lost EarningsCroley v. Republican Nat'l Comm. 759 A.2d 682 690 Calva-Cerqueira 281 F. Supp. 2d at 298 1. Delois Gillespie2. Debbie DugarB. Medical ExpensesSee Anthony v. Allstate Ins. Co., 790 A.2d 535 537-38 C. Pain and SufferingJones v. Miller 290 A.2d 587 590 Calva-Cerqueria 281 F. Supp. 2d at 294 1. Delois Gillespie2. Debbie DugarCf. Hawthorne v. Canavan 756 A.2d 397 399 The clavicle is the collar bone.
Rule 59(a) of the Superior Court's Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the court to order a new trial on "all or part of the issues." By remanding the case to the trial court for a new trial as to liability only, we are directing that court to try the sole issue in the case that remains undecided following our disposition of the present appeal. Moreover, this is not a case in which the issues of liability and damages are so "intertwined," cf. Anthony v. Allstate Ins. Co., 790 A.2d 535, 538 (D.C. 2002), that the jury on remand could not fairly evaluate liability without also considering damages. Indeed, the second jury already considered damages alone after the question of liability had already been resolved, and it would be incompatible with "good judicial husbandry," In re Melton, 597 A.2d 892, 908 (D.C. 1991) (en banc) (citation omitted), for this court now to require a third jury to reconsider an issue which a second jury has already decided and which this court has now addressed on the merits and conditionally affirmed in part and vacated in part.