Opinion ID: 2000436
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the District Court Erred in Granting a New Trial if the Plaintiff Alone Refused to Accept the Additur.

Text: The district court granted Fisher a new trial on damages unless both parties accepted an additur of $1000 for pain and suffering related to her neck injury. We can assume that Fisher refused the additur because there is nothing in the record to indicate otherwise. Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 250 governs conditional new trials. The rule pertinently provides: a. The district court may permit a party to avoid a new trial under R.C.P.... 244 by agreeing to such terms or conditions as it may impose, which shall then be shown of record and a judgment entered accordingly. b. If the term or condition imposed is a choice between consenting to a reduced, modified or increased judgment amount or proceeding to a new trial, ... then the choice shall be made by filing a written consent to the reduced, modified or increased judgment with the clerk of the district court in which the case was tried.... Iowa R. Civ. P. 250(a), (b) (emphasis added). Whether the district court erred in conditioning the new trial on the consent of both parties turns on our interpretation of the rule. Rules have the force and effect of statutes. Anderson v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 259 N.W.2d 814, 819 (Iowa 1977). Consequently, we interpret rules in the same manner we interpret statutes. See id. Because the issue is one of interpretation, our review is for correction of errors at law. See State v. Azneer, 526 N.W.2d 298, 299 (Iowa 1995) (reviewing statutory construction matters for corrections of errors at law). The opening language of the rule makes plain that only the party wishing to avoid a new trial has the right to accept or decline the condition, which in this case is an additur. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 250(a) (The district court may permit a party to avoid a new trial under R.C.P. ... 244 by agreeing to such terms or conditions as it may impose....). Our interpretation of the rule does not prejudice either party. If either party thinks the additur is unjustified, they may appeal, and the effect of the appeal nullifies the district court's order. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 250(c) (providing that in the event of an appeal any such term or condition or judgment entered pursuant to district court order shall be deemed of no force and effect and the original judgment entered pursuant to R.C.P. 223 shall be deemed reinstated). Here, Fisher moved for a new trial. Therefore, she was not the party wishing to avoid a new trial. Davis resisted Fisher's motion for new trial. She was therefore the party wishing to avoid a new trial. The district court erred in ordering additur unless both parties consented. The court should have required only Davis' consent. We have already determined that the original judgment, which by the appeal was reinstated, was inadequate, not sustained by sufficient evidence, and contrary to law. We reverse that judgment and remand. On remand the district court can again decide whether or not to grant a new trial on condition of an additur or simply to grant a new trial. Should the court decide to grant a new trial on condition of an additur, the court shall require only Davis' consent. That brings us to the last issue in the case.