Opinion ID: 2639659
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether It Was Error To Deny a Remittitur Based on Isabel's Maximum Possible Recovery

Text: The borough argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to grant a remittitur, which the borough sought as an alternative to a new trial. We reverse a trial court's denial of a remittitur only when `left with a firm conviction on the whole record that the trial judge made a mistake in refusing to order a remittitur or grant a new trial' and where intervention on our part is necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice. [34] Remittitur is appropriate when a jury without acting under the type of passion or prejudice that would warrant a new trial, nonetheless awards an amount that is unreasonable given the evidence. [35] Because the borough has not convinced us that the amount was unreasonable in light of the evidence, it was not error to deny a remittitur.