Court Opinion

ID: 9595230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:37:17.005262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:32:48.815502
License: Public Domain

Justice ERICKSON
specially concurring:
Following the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $100,000, the defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (J.N.O.V.). The trial court granted the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. I write this special concurrence to specify the two-part standard for determining a ■ motion for J.N.O.V., and to emphasize that when the trial judge determines the jury award of damages is excessive, he has the discretion to order a new trial on all issues.
I
In reviewing a motion for J.N.O.V., the court must apply a two-pronged standard. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and every reasonable inference which can be drawn must be made to support the verdict. Thorpe v. Durango School Dist. No. 9-R, 200 Colo. 268, 614 P.2d 880 (1980). J.N.O.V. may only then be granted if under these circumstances, the evidence can not support a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
In affirming the J.N.O.V., the court of appeals failed to apply the complete standard of review by not drawing every legitimate inference from the record that could be made in support of the plaintiffs verdict. In my view, a reversal is mandated because the court of appeals improperly concluded that based on the evidence presented at trial, a reasonable person could not reach the same verdict as the jury.
II
The court order granting J.N.O.V. provided that in the alternative, the trial court would have granted a new trial on all issues, due to the size of the damages awarded by the jury. The trial court has broad discretion to order a new trial. C.R.C.P. 59(d); Burns v. McGraw-Hill Broadcasting Co., 659 P.2d 1351 (Colo.1983). Although the order for a new trial was apparently based on the trial court’s determination that the damages were excessive, a new trial need not be limited to the issue of damages, but may properly include all other issues. Dale v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 152 Colo. 581, 383 P.2d 795 (1963). An order for a new trial is not appealable, C.R.C.P. 59(h), therefore this court must return this case to the court of appeals with directions to remand to the trial court for a new trial.
VOLLACK, J., joins in this special concurrence.