Opinion ID: 2375470
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: On Plaintiff's Motion for Reargument

Text: The plaintiff's motion for reargument is an effective statement of her factual position but does not add anything that was not already before the Court. It is important to bear in mind not only the substantive standards but also the role of the trial and appellate court. Our prime role is to determine whether the Trial Judge's determination  the $135,000.00 verdict was so grossly excessive to shock the Court's conscience and therefore justified a new trial  was an abuse of discretion. It is evident in our judgment that his decision in this regard was not clearly unreasonable or capricious and therefore his decision in this regard did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The subsidiary matter, at least in a legal sense on appeal, is the precise amount of the remittitur about which we make no judgment in this case. In two respects, however, we did comment on the plaintiff's position. First we found some confusion in the Trial Judge's language on permanency. Second, in light of the Trial Judge's finding that a $50,000.00 verdict was substantial but bore a fair relationship to plaintiff's injuries, we noted that the Delaware practice should be to grant the plaintiff every reasonable factual inference and determine what verdict the record justifies as an absolute maximum. But we adhere to the view that neither of these considerations justify our exercise of our judgment on the precise amount of the remittitur in this case. We see no harm, however, in permitting the plaintiff an opportunity to apply to the Trial Judge for reconsideration of the amount of the remittitur following this Court's opinion on appeal. If the two considerations mentioned above might affect the Trial Judge's judgment as to the extent of the remittitur, it would seem appropriate for him to exercise his judgment again to ascertain if the remittitur should be made less severe on the plaintiff. Of course, if his view remains the same, the matter can proceed as originally determined. Therefore, while we deny the motion for reargument, our affirmance is qualified to permit the plaintiff, in light of the whole record, including the opinion on appeal, to apply to the Trial Judge, by motion filed not later than 10 days after the date of remand, for a decrease in the amount of remittitur, which would result in a consequent increase in the amount of recovery permitted by the Trial Judge. The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.