I agree that V.R.C.P. 59 incorporates the majority rule that remittitur, once accepted, cannot be appealed. I write separately because I believe that this rule is flawed, and that a change should be considered by the rules committee. The rule that a plaintiff cannot appeal remittitur without first enduring the time and expense of a new trial is both widespread and longstanding. See, e.g., Donovan v. Unfortunately, the long history of the rule appears to be the only justification for it.
Some courts attempt to justify the practice with circular reasoning.
The rules governing remittitur could be changed to permit a plaintiff to accept remittitur under protest. Tenn. Code Ann. Where a substantive explanation is offered, courts typically fall back on the unsupported claim that the traditional rule conserves judicial resources by reducing the number of appeals. Plaintiff correctly points out, however, that withholding the right to review pending a second trial may increase the strain on judicial resources. If a plaintiff is willing to accept remittitur, but wants the decision reviewed, a new trial wastes time and money.