Opinion
C.A. No. 03C-09-023 WLW.
Submitted: July 8, 2005.
Decided: October 31, 2005.
Upon Defendants' Motion for New Trial or Remittitur. Denied.
Wayne N. Elliott, Esquire of Prickett Jones Elliott, P.A., Dover, Delaware; attorneys for the Plaintiff.
James J. Woods, Jr., Esquire of Sullivan Woods, LLC, Wilmington, Delaware; attorneys for the Defendants.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the parties' briefs and the record below, it appears to the Court:
Defendants, John Witt and Sutton Bus Truck Co., filed a Motion for New Trial or Remittitur asking this Court to grant a new trial on the issue of damages or reduce the jury verdict to $100,000 or less, alleging that the verdict was excessive. Plaintiff, Marie Vogt, contends that the verdict is fair and is the product of careful consideration by the jury. This case arose out of an accident in which Defendant Witt was driving a bus owned by Defendant Sutton Bus Truck Co. that struck Plaintiff's vehicle. Plaintiff suffered permanent injuries from the accident, including minimal tenderness as a result of eight broken ribs, spinal disc herniation, a sternoclavical contusion, and piriformis syndrome, which causes permanent buttock and radicular pain. Further, negligence and proximate cause were admitted. After deliberating five hours over two days, the jury determined that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent, but that her negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident. The jury, therefore, awarded her $800,000.
For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' Motion for New Trial or Remittitur is denied.
Standard of Review
"When considering a motion for a new trial, the jury's verdict is presumed to be correct." Moreover, when determining the absolute maximum verdict supported by the record, every reasonable factual inference must be granted to the plaintiff. A jury verdict should be set aside only when, in the Court's discretion, it "`is at least against the great weight of the evidence.'" The Court cannot grant a new trial if the verdict is merely against the preponderance of the evidence, or if the Court would have arrived at a different verdict. In fact, "[t]he factual findings of a jury will not be disturbed if there is any competent evidence upon which the verdict could reasonably be based." "Therefore, `barring exceptional circumstances, a trial judge should not set aside a jury verdict [as being against the great weight of the evidence] unless . . . the evidence [weighs] so heavily against the jury verdict that a reasonable jury could not have reached the result.'"A jury's verdict should not be subject to remittitur unless it was clearly "the result of passion, prejudice, partiality or corruption, or that it was clearly in disregard of the evidence or applicable rules of law." A jury verdict also should not be set aside unless it "`is so grossly excessive as to shock the Court's conscience and sense of justice.'" A jury verdict should be presumed valid unless exceptional circumstances are present. Consequently, "`[r]ecognizing the exclusive province of the jury on damages claimed to be grossly out of proportion, `the courts will yield to the verdict of the jury where any margin for difference of opinion exists in the matter of a verdict.'"
Pratt v. Fowler, 1992 Del. Super. LEXIS 16, at *2-3.
Bounds, 2004 Del. Super. LEXIS 39, at *1.
Young v. Frase, 702 A.2d 1234, 1236 (Del. 1997).
Carney v. Preston, 683 A.2d 47 (Del.Super. 1996).
Discussion
Defendants contend that the jury verdict is excessive, and therefore, this Court should grant either a new trial or remittitur. Defendants based their argument on several other decisions awarding less money to the respective plaintiffs for allegedly similar or more severe injuries. In Bounds, the Court denied a motion for new trial or remittitur based on a jury verdict of $1,500,000 for plaintiff Craig Bounds and $275,000 for plaintiff Leslie Bounds, his wife, as a result of a knee injury he sustained while working. In its decision, the Court observed that this Court has previously stated, "`[i]t is difficult, if not dangerous, to refer to other cases to argue that a particular verdict is too high or too low.' It is inevitable that there will be dissimilar results in personal injury suits because no two juries will judge the effect of a plaintiff's injuries identically." Additionally, the Court noted that it is significant when a jury finds a plaintiff contributorily negligent because it "supports an inference that the jury duly considered the evidence and the instructions."In the case sub judice, Plaintiff is 20 years old and has a life expectancy of 60.7 years. A number of Plaintiff's injuries are permanent. Plaintiff testified that she is in pain almost every day of her life and she feels like an 85 year old woman. In addition, Plaintiff testified that her grades suffered and her extracurricular activities suffered. For example, she could not participate in All-State Chorus, an honor accorded to high school students who excel in music. Based on this evidence, the jury deliberated and evaluated the damages caused by her injuries, pain and suffering, and the permanency of those injuries. It is apparent that the jury considered the evidence and the instructions because they determined that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent, but that her negligence was not the cause of her injuries.
Considering all of the reasonable factual inferences in favor of Plaintiff, and given the permanency of her injuries in light of her life expectancy, the jury's verdict is not against the great weight of the evidence. Based upon the evidence, a reasonable jury could have reached this result, so the jury's factual findings will not be disturbed. Therefore, the motion for a new trial is denied.
Further, while high in the zone of reasonableness, the jury's verdict does not appear to be the result of passion, prejudice, partiality or corruption, and it does not disregard the evidence. Nor does it shock this Court's conscience. Consequently, because there is a margin for difference of opinion, this Court will yield to the jury's verdict. Thus, the motion for remittitur is also denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.