Opinion ID: 2622669
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dr. Jensen's Argument on Appeal

Text: ¶114 On appeal, Dr. Jensen mounts a three-pronged attack in support of the jury's economic damages attributed to the third broadcast. He first argues that we cannot disturb the findings of the jury because this court must defer to a jury's findings. He also insists that because the trial court denied motions for new trial or reduction or vacation of the award, this represents further solidarity of the judgment. We disagree. As explained earlier, our jurisprudence gives appellate courts the right to vacate a jury verdict for insufficient evidence if, upon review, we are unable to identify substantial evidence in support of the finding. As we have detailed, that is the case here. ¶115 Second, Dr. Jensen argues that defendants failed to marshal the evidence and merely pay lip service to this obligation. As we addressed above, we reject this attempt to transfer the burden to defendants, which cannot be met because there is, in fact, no discrete evidence to support an award of damages on the third broadcast. ¶116 Finally, Dr. Jensen acknowledges that in presenting damage calculations at trial, [his] experts did not compartmentalize the damages by broadcast. He argues this was not necessary because the jury heard the evidence and apportioning the awards by broadcast was properly left to the discretion of the jury. The structure of the jury verdict undercuts this assertion. The jury was presented with a separate verdict form concerning economic damages attributable to the third broadcast. Its award must be supported by substantial evidence that meets the requirements of the verdict. The record does not contain that evidence. Therefore, we vacate the award.