Opinion ID: 22352
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adequacy of Damages

Text: In reviewing whether the district court abused its discretion in denying appellants’ motion for new trial because of inadequate damages, we determine whether there is an absolute absence of evidence to support the jury’s verdict. See Hidden Oaks Ltd., 138 F.3d at 1051. “In addition, we will interfere with the factfinder’s award of damages only in extreme and exceptional cases 6 where the award is so gross . . . as to be contrary to right reason.” Young v. City of New Orleans, 751 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1985) (quoting Baily v. Southern Pac. Transp. Co., 613 F.2d 1385, 1390 (5th Cir. 1980). Sarah Nell Box claimed that she suffered damages from loss of consortium because of her husband’s alleged injury. However, the defendants, through cross-examination of Mrs. Box, demonstrated that Mrs. Box could not attribute her marital problems to her husband’s injury. Tr. at 336-42. She also testified that the reason she filed the lawsuit was to secure an interest in the litigation because of her pending divorce proceeding against her husband. Tr. at 335-36. Therefore, the jury’s verdict is supported by evidence that Mrs. Box did not suffer damages from loss of consortium. This is clearly not the type of exceptional case where the award is so inadequate as to be contrary to right reason. In fact, testimony at trial supports the verdict. Because the record fails to show that the jury reached a compromise verdict or that the jury assessed inadequate damages, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion for new trial. AFFIRM 7