Opinion ID: 2495848
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in denying a new trial and ordering an additur in its post-trial order.

Text: ¶ 55. A court's consideration of additur is governed by statute and caselaw. See Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-55 (Rev.2002); Dedeaux v. Pellerin Laundry, Inc., 947 So.2d 900, 908-09 (Miss.2007). Dedeaux states that a party aggrieved by the amount of damages awarded pursuant to a jury verdict may file a motion for an additur. . . . Dedeaux, 947 So.2d at 908. L.R. filed a motion that included a plea for additur as one alternative. ¶ 56. L.R. maintains that the trial court erred by denying her motion for a new trial and in ordering an additur, which was, in the alternative, the relief sought. The additur statute allows a trial judge to overrule a motion for a new trial . . . upon condition of an additur. . . . Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-55 (Rev.2002). Based on our analysis, we find that the trial court was not in error for denying a new trial, as a new trial was not warranted for the reasons sought, although the trial court's decision was reached through a different analysis. ¶ 57. The trial court's additur order includes no findings of fact. The record reveals that the trial court expressed shock at the amount of the award, but the trial court failed to make a finding that the jury was influenced by bias, passion, or prejudice; or that the verdict was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. A finding of one of these is a prerequisite to setting aside a jury verdict. See Dorrill v. State Highway Comm'n of Miss., 525 So.2d 1333, 1335 (Miss.1988). ¶ 58. Awards set by jury are not merely advisory and generally will not be `set aside unless so unreasonable as to strike mankind at first blush as being beyond all measure, unreasonable in amount and outrageous.' Patterson v. Liberty Assocs., L.P., 910 So.2d 1014, 1020-21 (Miss. 2004) (quoting Rodgers v. Pascagoula Pub. Sch. Dist., 611 So.2d 942, 945 (Miss. 1992)). `Additurs represent a judicial incursion into the traditional habitat of the jury, and therefore should never be employed without great caution.' Patterson, 910 So.2d at 1021 (quoting Gibbs v. Banks, 527 So.2d 658, 659 (Miss.1988)). ¶ 59. A statute and our caselaw require findings before a judge may grant an additur. See Miss.Code Ann. § 11-1-55 (Rev.2002); Dorrill, 525 So.2d at 1334-35. The statute allows a court to order an additur if it finds that the jury or trier of the facts was influenced by bias, prejudice, or passion, or that the damages awarded were contrary to the overwhelming weight of credible evidence. Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-55 (Rev.2002). The Dorrill Court stated: before the trial judge may usurp the jury's function in setting a damage award, he must comply with the language of the statute. . . . Absent either of these findings, the trial court abuses its discretion in ordering a new trial based upon the non-acceptance of an additur or remittitur. . . . Dorrill, 525 So.2d at 1334-35. Here, the trial court failed to make either finding, and thus, the court abused its discretion. Even without this procedural flaw, the result would be the same. Evidence, as recounted above, existed to support the jury's verdict, and nothing in the record reveals that the jury was influenced by bias, prejudice, or passion. Further, the trial court erred, as the jury verdict was not so unreasonable as to strike mankind at first blush as being beyond all measure, unreasonable in amount and outrageous. Patterson, 910 So.2d at 1020-21. Jury awards of much less have been affirmed for similar injuries. See Doe ex rel. Doe v. N. Panola Sch. Dist., 906 So.2d 57, 59, 63-64 (Miss.Ct.App.2004) (denial of additur to award of approximately $20,000 to the family of a retarded girl repeatedly sexually assaulted at school); Doe ex rel. Doe v. Salvation Army, 835 So.2d 76 (Miss.2003) (boys sexually abused at summer camp awarded $30,000 each). ¶ 60. We find that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering additur, but did not err in denying a new trial.