Opinion ID: 1057402
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Motion for New Trial or Additur

Text: ¶ 5. Rulings on motions for new trial are within the discretion of the trial court. Irving v. Agency of Transp., 172 Vt. 527, 528, 768 A.2d 1286, 1289 (2001) (mem.). When reviewing a trial court's decision on a motion for new trial, we afford the decision all possible presumptive support, similar to the support the trial court owes to a jury verdict. Brueckner v. Norwich Univ., 169 Vt. 118, 133, 730 A.2d 1086, 1097 (1999) (quotation omitted). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. at 120-21, 730 A.2d at 1089. However, a jury's verdict should not be upheld if there is evidence that the jury compromised its verdict. Ball v. Melsur Corp., 161 Vt. 35, 44, 633 A.2d 705, 712 (1993) (citation and quotation omitted). ¶ 6. The superior court denied plaintiff's motion for a partial new trial or additur on the basis that the court could not conclude with certainty on the record that the jury was without a basis to find plaintiff's evidence on pain and suffering unpersuasive. Plaintiff contends that the jury had no basis to find that she did not endure any pain or suffering as a result of the slip and fall and ensuing spinal surgery, and that the superior court therefore erred in denying her motion for a partial new trial or additur. ¶ 7. As noted, plaintiff's motion clearly sought a new trial solely on the issue of damages; plaintiff could have, but did not, request a new trial on all issues. See V.R.C.P. 59(a) (The court before which an action has been tried may on motion grant a new trial to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues for any of the reasons for which new trials or rehearings have heretofore been granted in actions at law or in suits in equity in the courts of this state.). As a general matter, a new trial may properly be limited to a single issue only where the issue sought to be retried is clearly separable from the other issues. See Gasoline Prods. Co. v. Champlin Refining. Co., 283 U.S. 494, 500, 51 S.Ct. 513, 75 L.Ed. 1188 (1931) (Where the practice permits a partial new trial, it may not properly be resorted to unless it clearly appears that the issue to be retried is so distinct and separable from the others that a trial of it alone may be had without injustice.). Our review of plaintiff's Rule 59 motion thus has two parts: first, whether the trial court erred in denying the motion; and second, whether a new trial should be on all issues or on damages alone. [2]