Opinion ID: 2286183
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Motion for Remittitur

Text: Landlord argues that the amounts awarded to Watson and Stroot were so excessive that they shock the conscience. It points out that Watson's medical complaints were relatively mild and she had no observable symptoms after leaving Haverford Place. Stroot incurred $28,810 in medical expenses and suffered aggravation of her asthma and allergies. Her cognitive deficit, according to Landlord is mild and her increased risks of osteopenia and tuberculosis were not quantified. At best, according to Landlord, these injuries could support an award of $250,000, not the $1,000,000 set by the jury. The trial court carefully considered these arguments: The presumption in Delaware is that a jury verdict is correct and just. A Motion for Remittitur ... may be granted... only with great reluctance. This Court has the authority to grant a new trial if it finds that the verdict is based upon passion, partiality, prejudice, mistake or misapprehension on the part of the jury. It has also been held that a verdict will not be set aside unless it is so grossly excessive as to shock the Court's conscience and sense of justice; and unless the injustice of allowing the verdict is clear.       The jury obviously accepted Dr. Johanning's and Dr. Rose's medical testimony in this case that despite other triggers which could cause her to have an asthma attack, Stroot's asthma was nevertheless significantly exacerbated or worsened by her exposure to microbial contamination at the apartment complex, and that her need for medication increased significantly after she moved to Haverford Place. The Court is satisfied that Stroot showed to a reasonable degree of medical probability that her asthma symptoms decreased, but did not return to her pre-exposure baseline, after she left the apartment complex.       The Court also finds that the medical and scientific evidence presented at trial established ... that [Stroot's] osteopenia is causally related to her increased steroid use not only while living at Haverford Place, but also after she moved out. The evidence ... also showed that Stroot's increased need for steroids to suppress the asthma has increased her risk for developing active tuberculosis. Further, the jury may have also chosen to accept Dr. Wayne Gordon's testimony... that ... Stroot's cognitive deficits in three areas  attention, concentration, and executive functioning, were proximately caused by her long-term exposure to microbial contamination at Haverford Place. Turning to ... Joletta Watson ... Dr. Johanning ... stated that ... Watson had a positive IgE, indicating the development of a permanent mold allergy. Dr. Johanning opined ... that Watson developed significant and permanent allergies to mold and that persons with mold allergies are more likely to develop asthma, sinusitis, and bronchitis....       Given the permanent nature of Plaintiffs' injuries as well as the physical and emotional pain and suffering Stroot and Watson will have to endure for the remainder of their lives, the Court does not find the $1,000,000 verdict to Stroot, or the $40,000 verdict to Watson unreasonable, nor is its conscience shocked. [12] We accept the trial court's well reasoned analysis.