Opinion ID: 1337448
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Counsel for Plaintiff Improperly Stated a Damage Target Amount to the Jury During Closing Arguments

Text: Dr. Sakhai argued that the trial judge was correct in granting a new trial because counsel for the plaintiff improperly stated that a million dollars for noneconomic damages was the target amount for the jury. The majority opinion rejected the argument after concluding that the jury was adequately instructed to understand that the million dollar figure represented an absolute upper limit, and not a `target.' This conclusion by the majority opinion is wrong. Furthermore, the majority opinion distorted what actually occurred. To begin, counsel for the plaintiff made the following statement to the jury during closing arguments: Counsel for Plaintiff: The vision would certainly be included in loss of enjoyment of life, mental anguish, the fright he had to go through with the second surgery, and the Court has instructed that whatever those items you have, a million dollars is the total. It cannot be above a million dollars, so that's the target [.] (Emphasis added). Clearly, counsel for plaintiff went beyond the trial court's instruction and informed the jury that a million dollars was the target. Immediately after plaintiff's counsel concluded his closing argument, defense counsel moved for a mistrial. The following exchange occurred at the bench. Judge: Well, I'm not going to declare a mistrial. I may have to take this up inWhat concerned me, quite frankly, more was the discussion of the statutory limit of a million dollars and saying, That's the target. That suggests an amount, and that does bother me. Counsel for Plaintiff: Did I say, That's the target.? Judge: Yes, you did. Counsel for Plaintiff: Did I correct it? Did I not Judge: No. You didn't correct it. The evidence illustrates that counsel for the plaintiff misstated the trial judge's instruction on the million dollar cap and informed the jury that the sum was the target. Counsel for the plaintiff even tried to argue that he was not aware that he spoke those words and questioned whether he clarified his words to the jury. In spite of the blatant evidence of what actually took place, the majority opinion concluded that counsel for the plaintiff did not state a target amount for the jury. I simply cannot accept the majority's decision to distort the record in order to reinstate a plaintiff verdict. Our law is clear. Stating a target amount for a jury to return for noneconomic damages is reversible error where the verdict is obviously influenced by such statement. Syl. pt. 7, in part, Bennett v. 3 C Coal Co., 180 W.Va. 665, 379 S.E.2d 388 (1989). In the instant case, the trial court denied the motion for mistrial because it wanted to see if the improper target statement had prejudiced the jury. After the jury returned a verdict of $800,000, the trial court recognized that the remark was prejudicial and therefore granted the motion for a new trial. The trial court's decision was consistent with the law in this state and should not have been reversed. In a case filed this term, Lamphere v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, 210 W.Va. 303, 557 S.E.2d 357 (2001) (per curiam), this Court affirmed the decision of the trial judge in granting a new trial to the plaintiff after the jury returned a defense verdict. In affirming the trial court's decision in Lamphere, we recognized in syllabus point 1 of the opinion the longstanding principle of law that  `[a] trial judge's decision to award a new trial is not subject to appellate review unless the trial judge abuses his or her discretion.' Quoting Syl. pt. 3, in part, In re State Pub. Bldg. Asbestos Litig., 193 W.Va. 119, 454 S.E.2d 413 (1994). See also Lively v. Rufus, 207 W.Va. 436, 440-441, 533 S.E.2d 662, 666-667 (2000); Tennant v. Marion Health Care Foundation, 194 W.Va. 97, 104, 459 S.E.2d 374, 381 (1995); Syl. pt. 4, Sanders v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 159 W.Va. 621, 225 S.E.2d 218 (1976). No abuse of discretion was shown in the instant proceeding to justify the majority's decision to reverse the new trial awarded in this case.