Opinion ID: 2460770
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legal standards regarding damages and the motion; standard of review for the ruling

Text: In breach of contract actions a plaintiff must present to the jury evidence sufficient to calculate the amount of the loss caused by the breach. [50] The evidence does not need to prove with exact detail the amount of damages; the evidence needs only to be sufficient to provide a reasonable basis for the jury's determination. [51] In other words the law does not require absolute precision, it requires only a reasonable basis for the award. [52] Although a purely speculative award of damages is impermissible: [53] Once actual damages are shown and there is a reasonable basis for computing an award, a defendant's opportunity for pre-trial discovery of the evidentiary basis for the amount claimed, the right to cross-examine witnesses and to present evidence, as well as the judge's duty to instruct the jury on the issue of certainty provide adequate protection against speculative verdicts.[ [54] ] A trial court may grant remittitur when a jury returns an otherwise proper verdict awarding an amount of damages that the evidence cannot reasonably support. [55] Remittitur is appropriate when a jury `without acting under the type of passion or prejudice that would warrant a new trial, nonetheless awards an amount that is unreasonable given the evidence.' [56] We review a trial court's denial of remittitur for abuse of discretion, reversing only when left with a firm conviction on the whole record that the trial judge made a mistake in refusing to order a remittitur . . . and where intervention on our part is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice. [57] A trial court may grant a new trial on all or part of the issues tried to a jury if required in the interest of justice. [58] When considering a motion for new trial based on a claim that the jury's verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the court must use its discretion and independently weigh the evidence and may set aside the verdict even when `there is substantial evidence to support it.' [59] But on review: Because [t]he question . . . whether to grant or refuse a new trial rests in the sound discretion of the trial court . . . we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. We will affirm a trial court's decision to deny a new trial if there is an evidentiary basis for the jury's decision, and will only reverse a decision to deny a new trial if the evidence supporting the verdict was so completely lacking or slight and unconvincing as to make the verdict plainly unreasonable and unjust.[ [60] ]