Court Opinion

ID: 9686510
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:52:13.582591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:19.715962
License: Public Domain

FOSHEIM, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
The majority misconstrues the record relating to punitive damages. The trial court did not reduce the punitive damages award but rather ordered a new trial absent consent to a remittitur of excess damages. The issue on appeal therefore is whether the trial court erred in ordering a new trial.
A new trial may be granted when it appears that excessive damages have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice. SDCL 15-6-59(a). As a participant in the trial, and thus peculiarly qualified to sense whether an excessive verdict is in fact a product of passion or prejudice, the trial court is clothed with a latitude of discretion in passing on such a motion for new trial, and an appellate court will not disturb its decision except for clear abuse. Stene v. Hillgren, 77 S.D. 165, 88 N.W.2d 109 (1958); see also Basin Elec. Power Coop. v. Gosch, 90 S.D. 222, 240 N.W.2d 96 (1976); Byre v. Wieczorek, 88 S.D. 185, 217 N.W.2d 151 (1974); State Highway Comm. v. Madsen, 80 S.D. 120, 119 N.W.2d 924 (1963). A stronger case must be made to justify the interposition of the appellate court where a new trial has been granted than where it has been refused. J.H. Larson Elec. Co. v. Vander Vorste, 81 S.D. 296, 134 N.W.2d 500 (1965); Jensen v. Miller, 80 S.D. 384, 124 N.W.2d 394 (1963); Hodges v. Bierlein, 4 S.D. 258, 56 N.W. 811 (1893).
It is significant that the new trial order focused entirely on punitive damages. The trial judge was concerned that his punitive damage instruction to the jury was wanting or misunderstood as to the common law definitions of the terms oppression, fraud and malice. See SDCL 21-3-2. The trial court felt there was little, if any, evidence of oppression, fraud or malice on the part of defendant and that therefore any substantial award of punitive damages under an inadequate instruction would have been excessive and under the influence of passion or prejudice. The majority opinion identifies no abuse of discretion upon which this issue must pivot. I would affirm.