Case Title: Smales v. Bloom

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: delaware

Court: Delaware Supreme Court

Date: 2000-11-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
Smales v. Bloom  Download PDF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JEAN L. SMALES, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. DONALD D. BLOOM, JR., and NANCY W. BLOOM, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees. § § § § No. 252, 2000 § § Court Below: Superior Court § of the State of Delaware in and § for Kent County § C.A. No. 97C-12-033 § § § Submitted: November 21, 2000 Decided: November 22, 2000 Before WALSH, BERGER, and STEELE, Justices. ORDER This 22nd day of November 2000, upon consideration of the briefs of the parties, the Court concludes that the granting of a remittitur in lieu of a new trial is a matter within the discretion of the trial court given the trial court s unique perspective in the evaluation of the witnesses and the evidence presented. Under the circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion in the Superior Court s grant of remittitur. The Court further concludes that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the inadvertent testimony regarding liability insurance and admission of certain testimony regarding plaintiffs medical expert was not prejudicial and did not warrant the granting of a new trial under the circumstances. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED. BY THE COURT: s/Joseph T. Walsh Justice 2