After trial, by way of a special verdict form, the jury found both Ashford and the physicians negligent, attributing half the liability for Natalie's injury to Ashford and half to the physicians. Subsequently Ashford moved to set aside the verdict for insufficient evidence. The trial judge granted the motion, finding there was no evidence that Ashford's nurses were undertrained, nor evidence that the nurses in any way contributed to Natalie's injury. See Ponce v. Ashford Presbyterian Community Hosp.
Plaintiffs now appeal.
Plaintiffs' appeal is essentially three-pronged. They ask this court to reverse the trial court's decision to vacate the verdict against Ashford, to enter judgment as a matter of law on Ashford's cross-claim against the physicians, and to remand for a partial new trial limited to the question of damages. The third prong of plaintiffs' appeal is crucial to their case. Thus, in order to prevail, plaintiffs must show that the jury was erroneously led to underestimate damages, so as to reopen the possibility of winning an award on remand exceeding their settlement. We see no prejudicial error underlying the jury's damages assessment, however.