Court Opinion

ID: 9693294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:34:58.602486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:44.346766
License: Public Domain

Fairchild, J.
(dissenting). In my opinion the appeal should not be dismissed. Appellant attempted on motions after verdict to obtain relief from alleged errors both on liability and damage issues. The trial court determined that the verdict was not perverse but merely had awarded excessive damages. The trial court gave relief as to damages by *144giving an option either to permit judgment for an amount fixed by the court or to proceed with a new trial on damages only. In my opinion appellant cannot be said to have waived its right to a review of the liability issues on appeal by choosing to proceed with a new trial as to damages only. The argument that it had made such waiver could have been made with equal logic had the appellant chosen to permit judgment at the reduced figure. The reduction offered by the court and the new trial on damages only were simply alternative methods of granting relief from excessive damages only. Neither choice was inconsistent with the preservation of appellant’s challenge of the verdict on liability.
Able counsel for Steinfeldt did not assert that there had been a waiver by appellant of its right to appeal, but argued the merits here.