Court Opinion

ID: 9645147
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:14:01.597181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:24.054851
License: Public Domain

SMITH, Chief Judge
(concurring).
I concur fully in the opinion of the court, but include this concurring opinion to point out what I consider a serious injustice in Missouri’s remittitur practice as it now exists and which this case exemplifies.
Plaintiffs received a substantial verdict from the jury. The trial court, in the exercise of its discretion, reduced that verdict through remittitur by a total of $28,000 based upon defendant’s contention of exces-siveness in its motion for new trial. Plaintiffs were then confronted with accepting that remittitur or undergoing the delay, uncertainty, and strain of another trial. As usually occurs, they accepted the remittitur. Defendant then appealed, raising in this court as its predominant theme the renewed contention of exeessiveness. Plaintiffs having accepted the remittitur were unable to appeal the trial court’s decision on exces-siveness, nor are we asked to determine whether that decision was correctly made. In short, defendant has the benefit of the remittitur, an opportunity to reduce the judgment even more, delay in payment of the judgment, and no risks or adverse consequences from taking an appeal. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, have gained little or nothing from accepting the remittitur, *109which acceptance may well have been based upon a desire to receive the judgment expeditiously.
I entertain serious doubt that the remittitur entered by the trial court was warranted, at least in part and possibly in toto. If we are going to continue to permit appellate courts to entertain requests for additional remittitur then we should place the gamble for such appeals equally on the parties. Where a defendant has sought and received a remittitur from the trial court, which has been accepted by the plaintiff, such acceptance should not preclude an appellate court from examining the propriety of the remittitur where the defendant thereafter appeals. When the defendant elects to place before this court the amount of the damages by asking for additional remittitur, we should not be limited to deciding whether the action of the trial court was inadequate but should decide also whether it was excessive. Whether under the present law and rules we could so decide I do not reach for no request for such decision has been made.