Opinion ID: 1791345
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: whether the verdict against gatewood is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence and the verdict is the result of bias, passion and prejudice.

Text: ¶ 21. Gatewood's final assertion of error is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial on the grounds that the jury award was excessive. He asks this Court to grant a remittitur pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-55 which grants this Court such power when it finds that the damages are excessive ... for the reason that the jury or trier of the facts was influenced by bias, prejudice, or passion or when the verdict is so unreasonable in amount as to strike mankind at first blush as being beyond all measure, unreasonable in amount and outrageous. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-55 (1991). ¶ 22. As stated previously, a circuit court's refusal to grant a new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Bobby Kitchens, Inc. v. Miss. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 560 So.2d 129, 132 (Miss.1989). Circumstances in which a new trial may be granted are `when the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, or when the jury has been confused by faulty jury instructions, or when the jury has departed from its oath and its verdict is a result from bias, passion, and prejudice.' Hamilton v. Hammons, 792 So.2d 956, 965 (Miss.2001) quoting Bobby Kitchens, Inc., 560 So.2d at 132; Clayton v. Thompson, 475 So.2d 439, 443 (Miss.1985); Griffin v. Fletcher, 362 So.2d 594, 596 (Miss.1978). Generally, `the only evidence of corruption, passion, prejudice or bias on the part of the jury is an inference, if any, to be drawn from contrasting the amount of the verdict with the amount of the damages.' Green v. Grant, 641 So.2d 1203, 1209 (Miss.1994) quoting Biloxi Elec. Co. v. Thorn, 264 So.2d 404, 405 (Miss.1972). See also Rodgers v. Pascagoula Pub. Sch. Dist., 611 So.2d 942, 945 (Miss.1992). ¶ 23. Where a trial court refuses to grant a remittitur, this Court reviews the decision for abuse of discretion. Odom v. Roberts, 606 So.2d 114, 121 (Miss. 1992). The jury's award is not to be set aside unless it is entirely disproportionate to the injury sustained. Illinois Cent. R.R. v. Gandy, 750 So.2d 527, 534 (Miss. 1999). However, when determining the reasonableness of an award, the sky is simply not the limit. Id (quoting Simeon v. T. Smith & Son, Inc., 852 F.2d 1421, 1427 (5th Cir.1988)). The Court looks to see whether the verdict is so excessive it shocks the conscience evidencing a bias, passion and prejudice on the part of the jury. Dorris v. Carr, 330 So.2d 872, 874 (Miss.1976). If a remittitur in any amount is awarded, the plaintiff will then have the option of accepting the reduced award or going to trial again on the issue of damages alone. Odom, 606 So.2d at 122. ¶ 24. Gatewood contends the amount of compensatory damages awarded by the jury demonstrated it departed from its oath and the verdict was the result of bias, passion and prejudice. Sampson points to the evidence of pain and suffering and medical expenses offered at trial as proof of the reasonableness of the damages. ¶ 25. Sampson entered proof of lost wages totaling $4,900.00. His total medical expenses amounts to $3,102.50. The total amount awarded in this case is almost one hundred times Sampson's medical expenses. Sampson's special damages total $8,002.50. The total damages awarded by the jury is approximately thirty-eight times the proof of special damages. ¶ 26. Sampson described the following as evidence of his past and future pain and suffering and future medical expenses. He awoke in the hospital with a headache and soreness. He has recurring nightmares, causing him to lose sleep. He also gets headaches and dizziness when he stands for long lengths of time. The gunshot wound is sensitive to the touch and is scarred. He suffers from depression and may require several future visits to a psychiatrist. It is contested whether he suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome. ¶ 27. Both Gatewood and Sampson refer this Court to the Court of Appeals opinion in Cade v. Walker, 771 So.2d 403 (Miss.Ct.App.2000). That court, in a 10-0 decision, held that it would not disturb a total jury award for compensatory damages which was fifty-one times the amount of the plaintiff's medical expenses. Id at 410. After reviewing the elements of the damages awarded, the court compared the award to other awards involving similar circumstances. Id at 408-9. Stating that the amount of damages is primarily a concern for the jury who is entitled to a large amount of leeway, the court deferred to the jury's judgment and affirmed the award. Id at 410. ¶ 28. It is primarily the province of the jury to determine the amount of damages to be awarded. Harvey v. Wall, 649 So.2d 184, 187 (Miss.1995); Rodgers, 611 So.2d at 945. We are not of the opinion that the jury award in this case is entirely disproportionate to the injuries Sampson sustained. Therefore, we leave the award intact, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Gatewood's motion for a remittitur.