Opinion ID: 1717677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: remittitur and excessive verdict claims

Text: Defendants' next point is that the trial court erred in failing to enter an order of remittitur reducing the damages which the jury assessed in favor of Wanda Thompson. The verdict was for $1,860,000. Because the jury found Wanda to be 10% at fault, the trial court properly reduced the award by 10% to $1,674,000. Defendants claim that the award exceeds reasonable compensation and is punitive. Under § 537.068, RSMo Supp.1982, enacted in 1987, the trial court may order remittitur if, after reviewing the evidence in support of the jury's verdict, the court finds that the jury's verdict is excessive because the amount of the verdict exceeds fair and reasonable compensation for plaintiff's injuries and damages. We agree with the holding of the court of appeals in Larabee v. Washington, 793 S.W.2d 357, 359-60 (Mo.App.1990), that review of the trial court's failure to order remittitur under this statute is solely for abuse of discretion. Wanda Thompson incurred approximately $86,000 in medical expenses for her daughter's treatment, and the evidence indicates that future surgical procedures and therapy will be necessary. Latonya needs full-time care which must be provided by her mother, either personally or financially. Most importantly, Ms. Thompson has been deprived of the enjoyment of her daughter's company, the loss of her services, society and companionship. Given the devastating injuries to Latonya, we do not believe that the jury award exceeded fair and reasonable compensation. There was no abuse of discretion. In a related argument, defendants assert trial court error in the denial of their motion for new trial because the verdicts were the result of bias, passion and prejudice on the part of the jurors and were so excessive that they should have shocked the conscience of the court. The amount of the verdict, however, will not alone establish the passion or prejudice necessary to overturn a verdict. Larabee , at 359-60. We have held that the verdict was not so excessive to require remittitur, and for the same reasons, the verdict is not so excessive that it shocks the conscience of the court. Point denied.