Opinion ID: 1829871
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Was the jury's award of punitive damages excessive?

Text: The right to a trial by jury is a fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed right, Art. I, § 11, Const of 1901, and therefore a jury verdict may not be set aside unless the verdict is flawed, thereby losing its protection. Hammond, 493 So.2d at 1378. With regard to damages, a jury verdict may be flawed in two ways. First, it may include or exclude a sum which is clearly recoverable or not as a matter of law, or which is totally unsupported by the evidence where there is an exact standard or rule of law that makes the damages legally and mathematically ascertainable at a precise figure.... Second, a jury verdict may be flawed because it results, not from the evidence and applicable law, but from bias, passion, prejudice, corruption, or other improper motive. Hammond, 493 So.2d at 1378. The presumption of correctness of a jury verdict can be overcome only by a clear showing that the amount of the award is excessive. Green Oil Co., 539 So.2d 218 (emphasis added). It is well understood that in considering the adequacy or excessiveness of a verdict, each case must be determined on its own facts, and that neither the trial court, nor this Court, may substitute its judgment for that of the jury. Green Oil Co., 539 So.2d at 222, citing City Bank of Alabama v. Eskridge, 521 So.2d 931 (Ala. 1988); Hammond, 493 So.2d 1374. The trial court entered the following order: The Court will now review the issue of damages. In doing so the Court will follow the directions of the Supreme Court as outlined in Green Oil Co. v. Hornsby, 539 So.2d 218 (Ala.1989), and Hammond v. City of Gadsden, 493 So.2d 1374 (Ala. 1986).