Opinion ID: 2064572
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: perversity of verdict

Text: [7, 8] Plaintiff argues that the verdict is the result of passion, prejudice, or perversity. She contends that the perversity of the verdict is manifested in the jury's $10,000 award for past pain and suffering and failure to award the plaintiff's husband damages for loss of society and companionship. The general rule is stated as follows: `where a jury has answered other questions so as to determine that there is no liability on the part of the defendant, which finding is supported by credible evidence, the denial of damages or granting of inadequate damages to the plaintiff does not necessarily show prejudice or render the verdict perverse. . . .' Dahl v. K-Mart, 46 Wis.2d 605, 613, 176 N.W.2d 342 (1970), quoting from Sell v. Milwaukee Automobile Insurance Co., 17 Wis.2d 510, 519-20, 117 N.W.2d 719 (1962). The trial court denied a motion for a new trial finding that the verdict was not the result of passion, prejudice, and perversity. The trial court's determination is entitled to great weight. Dahl, supra . We approve the trial court's determination.