Opinion
C.A. No. 02C-10-110 MMJ.
Submitted: February 11, 2005.
Decided: March 16, 2005
ORDER Upon Plaintiff Nicole Lyon's Motion for a New Trial
1. Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident on May 1, 2001. At the time, Plaintiff was fifteen year old. A jury trial was held on January 24, 2005.
2. The evidence at trial demonstrated that Plaintiff's injuries included a laceration, leaving a permanent scar on her cheek under her left eye. A plastic surgeon testified that Plaintiff could elect to have a surgical procedure to reduce the scar. The surgeon estimated cost of the procedure to be $4,000.
3. Plaintiff also testified that following the accident, she suffered temporary headaches and blurry vision.
4. The jury awarded a verdict in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $4,000. Plaintiff has moved for a new trial on the grounds that the jury verdict is inadequate as a matter of law and should shock the Court's conscience and sense of justice. Plaintiff claims that the jury's verdict represents an inappropriate compromise. Defendant argues that a damages award of $4,000 is consistent with the evidence presented at trial and is not grossly inadequate.
5. Under Delaware law, enormous deference is given to jury verdicts. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the validity of damages determined by the jury will be presumed. A jury award will be deemed grossly inadequate, so as to shock the Court's conscience and sense of justice, "when it is so inadequate that it must have been based on passion, prejudice or misconduct rather than on an objective consideration of the trial evidence." When supported by sufficient evidence, a jury's verdict will not be disturbed by granting additur or a new trial.
Young v. Frase, 702 A.2d 1234, 1236-37 (Del. 1997).
6. However, if the evidence establishes that a plaintiff suffered injury, however minimal, and the defendant is liable, the jury must award some amount of compensation to the plaintiff. In this case, the issue is whether the $4,000 award represents compensation to Plaintiff for general damages or whether the jury failed to compensate Plaintiff for her injury and instead, merely awarded the value of future medical expenses for the elective surgical procedure.
Maier v. Santucci, 697 A.2d 747, 748 (Del. 1997).
In hindsight, a special verdict form, requiring a specific enumeration of medical damages separate from pain and suffering, would have obviated this issue.
7. In other cases in which this issue has been considered, the determination was simpler for the Court. Other juries have awarded odd amounts, obviously identical to medical expenses. It is not patently obvious whether this $4,000 award represents future medical expenses or pain and suffering or some combination.
See, e.g., Petrova v. Stephenson, 2002 Del. Super. LEXIS 487, at *1-3 (jury awarded $2,280, the exact amount of outstanding medical bills); Chorman v. Kelly, 1997 Del. Super. LEXIS 292, at *1-2 (jury verdict of $31,022 precisely the sum of future and past medical expenses).
8. The Court is satisfied that Plaintiff conclusively proved some degree of compensable general damages. The evidence at trial was consistent with a relatively low recovery by Plaintiff for her temporary symptoms, facial laceration and small permanent scar. Nevertheless, it is simply too coincidental that the cost of remedial surgery is $4,000 and the jury's damages award was $4,000. Therefore, the Court finds that the jury failed to award Plaintiff any compensation for her injuries, with the exception of future medical expenses.
9. In considering whether additur is appropriate, every reasonable inference should be given to Defendant. The supplemental award should be in the lowest amount supported by the evidence. A factor of one is consistent with applicable precedent. THEREFORE, Plaintiff Nicole Lyon's Motion for a New Trial is denied at this time. A new trial on the issue of damages will be ordered unless, by written filing within 10 days of the date of this Order, Defendant accepts an additur, determined by a factor of one, in the amount of $4,000, for a total award of $8,000. If Defendant does not file an acceptance of the additur within 10 days, Plaintiff's Motion for a New Trial will be granted. If Defendant accepts the additur, judgment will be entered for Plaintiff in the amount of $8,000, unless the parties stipulate to a different resolution of this case.
Petrova, 2002 Del. Super. LEXIS at *4; Johnson v. Carney's Contracting Co., 1998 WL 732893, at *2 (Del.Super. 1998); Chorman, 1997 Del. Super LEXIS at *2.