Opinion ID: 1965068
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Insufficiency of Jury Verdict

Text: Streeks' first assignment of error is that the amount of damages awarded was so low that the trial court erred in overruling Streeks' motion for new trial or for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. A civil jury verdict will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly wrong. Chadron Energy Corp. v. First Nat. Bank, 236 Neb. 173, 182, 459 N.W.2d 718, 727 (1990). The amount of damages to be awarded is a determination solely for the fact finder, and its action in this respect will not be disturbed on appeal if it is supported by evidence and bears a reasonable relationship to the elements of the damages proved. Jones v. Meyer, 256 Neb. 947, 950, 594 N.W.2d 610, 612 (1999). The jury verdict in this case was not clearly wrong. The jury awarded Streeks $25,000, which is approximately the amount Streeks paid May for the seed. The potatoes Streeks raised were still suitable for sale in other markets at a lower price. Streeks did not sell the potatoes immediately after harvest, but held them, hoping for an increase in price, which never materialized. A mitigation of damages instruction allowed the jury to reduce Streeks' damages by any amount that he could have received had he sold the potatoes sooner. Although the evidence could have supported a larger verdict, the amount awarded is not clearly wrong under all the evidence presented. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Streeks' motion for new trial. See Nguyen v. Rezac, 256 Neb. 458, 590 N.W.2d 375 (1999).