Opinion ID: 1803417
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Excessive Damages and Insufficient Evidence

Text: McBane argues that the damages awarded are excessive as a matter of law and indicate passion and prejudice as the basis for the same .... since no evidence was submitted upon which rational fiscal and financial calculations could be made. In wrongful death actions, substantial damages will be presumed, although there are no hard and fast rules for determining the amount of damages, which are not susceptible to precise arithmetical calculation, and the exact amount of recoverable damages must, therefore, be left to the good judgment of the trier of fact, and need not be established by proof in dollars and cents. See generally Dugas v. Felton, 249 N.W.2d 215 (N.D.1976); Perleberg v. General Tire & Rubber Co., 221 N.W.2d 729 (N.D.1974); Grenz v. Werre, supra ; Anderson v. Schreiner, 94 N.W.2d 294 (N.D.1958); Henke v. Peyerl, supra ; Lake v. Neubauer, 87 N.W.2d 888 (N.D.1958); Schultz v. Winston & Newell Co., 68 N.D. 674, 283 N.W. 69 (1938). The issue of the amount of damages is a question of fact and, therefore, our review is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 52(a), N.D.R.Civ.P. Pfliger v. Peavey Co., 310 N.W.2d 742 (N.D.1981). Quoting Cook v. Stenslie, 251 N.W.2d 393, 396 (N.D.1977), in Jim's Hot Shot Serv. v. Continental Western Ins. Co., 353 N.W.2d 279, 281-282 (N.D.1984), we recently said that the standard for determining what constitutes an excessive verdict varies but generally includes one or more of the following: `[T]he amount is so unreasonable and extreme as to indicate passion or prejudice on the part of the jury; the award is so excessive as to be without support in the evidence; the jury verdict is so excessive as to appear clearly arbitrary, unjust, or such as to shock the judicial conscience, 22 Am.Jur.2d Damages § 366.' [Case cites omitted.] Antoinette has sons, but no daughters, and will be having no more children. Thus, she lost her only daughter. In Antoinette's Native American society, the traditions and culture are passed down through the women. Antoinette would have taught her daughter the values and the ways of the Indian people, the way we live. In her society, the women are very close, and she would have anticipated having a closer relationship with her daughter than with her sons. When she sees children on the streets, Antoinette wonders what her daughter would look like, how big she would be, and what we'd be doing. Antoinette testified that she thinks about her daughter every day and will never forget her. Antoinette's mother testified that six years later, Antoinette still talked about the baby [p]robably every week that I see her. As in Schultz v. Winston & Newell Co., supra, 283 N.W. at 73-74, we are unable to give a safe ground upon which we can say that the verdict is so excessive as to justify our interference therewith. We conclude that the trial court's findings of damages in the amount of $50,000 for mental anguish and grief and $100,000 for loss of companionship, society and comfort are not clearly erroneous. McBane argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based upon the insufficiency of the evidence to support the court's findings on proximate cause and the standard of care. A movant in a motion for new trial based upon the insufficiency of the evidence is asking the trial court to decide whether or not the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Okken v. Okken, 325 N.W.2d 264, 269 (N.D.1982). The court's findings are not against the weight of the evidence and we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of McBane's motion for a new trial. The judgment is affirmed. MESCHKE, J., and VERNON R. PEDERSON, Surrogate Justice, concur. VERNON R. PEDERSON, Surrogate Justice, sitting in place of ERICKSTAD, C.J., disqualified.