Opinion ID: 345512
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: propriety of the remittitur

Text: 20 As to the first question, we conclude that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in ordering a remittitur. The trial court concluded: 21 In examining the evidence in the case tried before this Court, I find that the verdict is not supported by the evidence and, moreover, reflects a punitive award. (footnote omitted) 22 As to the first finding, that the evidence failed to support the amount of damages awarded by the jury, we cannot say that the jury's original verdict was clearly within the universe of possible awards which are supported by the evidence. Bonura v. Sea Land Service, Inc., supra, 505 F.2d at 670. 23 The evidence of hard damages yields a total of approximately $3600 for past medical expenses. Thus over $81,000, or ninety-six percent of the award, must be assigned to the more speculative damage elements of past and future pain and suffering and loss of future earning capacity. Howell v. Marmpegaso Compania Naviera, 5 Cir. 1976, 536 F.2d 1032, 1034. We cannot say the record clearly supports such an amount. The plaintiff-appellant, however, contends that the trial court failed to take account of three factors in assessing the jury's verdict. First, the jury could reasonably conclude from Dr. Breffeilh's testimony that a cataract would develop as a result of the injury, that the retina would become detached, and that the injury would ultimately result in substantial impairment of vision in the injured eye. Second, the jury could reasonably take into account the preexisting myopia refractive error in judging the impact of the injury on Kevin. Third, the jury could conclude that the continued presence of lead pellets in Kevin's eye could create a risk of disability, perhaps from sympathetic ophthalmia. To the contrary, the district judge's memorandum opinion reveals that he gave careful consideration to the evidence of possible complications as a result of the injury to Kevin's eye. He concluded that the amount of damages awarded for such factors was excessive. The court's specific findings are discussed in greater detail in section I.B. 24 We defer to the trial court's second finding that the size of the award reflected its punitive nature 1 because he had the benefit of participating in the trial and observing the jury's reactions to the events that transpired. 25 The trial judge concluded that a note sent to him by the jury foreman just before the verdict was returned suggested the jury's desire to punish the Southern Pacific for failing to control the vandalism and to protect the train crews. 2 In addition, other evidence reveals that early in its deliberations the jury asked the court if it could find the Southern Pacific negligent without also resolving the liability issue against the conductor. 3 The judge responded negatively. The plaintiff contends that this incident discloses the nonpunitive nature of the $85,000 award, because the jury found both the railroad and the conductor negligent in conformance with the court's instructions. We disagree. This early note reveals the jury's desire to punish the Southern Pacific, and the other one suggests its determination that the company pay any and all damages. We cannot conclude that the district court was clearly erroneous, or abused its discretion, in finding that the verdict reflects a punitive amount. See Edwards v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 5 Cir. 1975, 512 F.2d 276, 281; Gorsalitz v. Olin Mathiesen Chemical Corp., 5 Cir. 1970, 429 F.2d 1033, 1046, cert. denied, 407 U.S. 921, 92 S.Ct. 2463, 32 L.Ed.2d 807, reh. denied, 409 U.S. 899, 93 S.Ct. 108, 34 L.Ed.2d 159. 26