An additur may be awarded when (1) " the damages are
... inadequate for the reason that the jury or trier of the facts was
influenced by bias, prejudice, or passion," or (2) " the damages
awarded were contrary to the overwhelming weight of credible evidence."
Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-55 (Rev.2002). In determining whether the jury was
influenced by bias, passion, or prejudice, the appellate review focuses on
whether the verdict is so " inadequate as to shock the
conscience...." Walker v. Gann,
955 So.2d 920, 931-32 (¶ 38) (Miss.Ct.App.2007) (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v. Johnson, 807 So.2d 382, 392 (¶ 27) (Miss.2001)). The standard of review for a denial of an
additur is abuse of discretion. Thompson,
86 So.3d at 237 (¶ 18).
The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, giving " him or her the benefit of all favorable
inferences reasonably drawn therefrom." Id. " If that evidence is
contradicted, we will defer to the jury, which determines the weight and worth
of testimony and the credibility of the witness at trial." Scott Prather Trucking, Inc. v. Clay,
821 So.2d 819, 821-22 (¶ 10) (Miss.2002) (internal quotation omitted). The
jury's award of damages will be taken as conclusive if it is " not
contradicted by positive testimony or circumstances, and is not inherently
improbable, incredible, or unreasonable...." A & F Props., LLC v. Lake Caroline, Inc., 775 So.2d 1276, 1282
(¶ 17) (Miss.Ct.App.2000) (quoting Lucedale
Veneer Co. v. Rogers, 211 Miss. 613, 635, 53 So.2d 69, 75 (1951)).
Of course, the flip side of this, remittitur (jury awarded too much) is largely judged by the same standard. I will discuss it briefly tomorrow most likely.
No comments:
Post a Comment