Court Opinion

ID: 9736818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:07:33.474686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:54.863819
License: Public Domain

Murphy, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur with the majority opinion with two exceptions.
First, a jury’s ability to render a verdict is not limited or controlled by the arguments of counsel as to an appropriate award or the manner in which a jury is to calculate an award. Rather, a jury award is to be determined based upon the evidence presented and the instructions from the court. Regarding the remittitur issues, in Palenkas v Beaumont Hosp, 432 Mich 527, 533-534; 443 NW2d 354 (1989), the Supreme Court held that an appellate court must accord due deference to the trial court’s decision and may only disturb a grant or denial of remittitur if an abuse of discretion is shown. I am not persuaded that an abuse of discretion has been shown with respect to the trial court’s decision on remittitur of either the economic or noneconomic damage portions of the verdict. On the noneconomic remittitur decision, I concur with the majority. On the economic remittitur decision, I cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying remittitur. The jury’s award for economic damages was consistent with the exhibits presented at trial; the evidence of replacement costs of health care insurance, future wage losses of the plaintiff, and the effects of inflation thereon; and the instructions given by the court.
Second, I am not prepared to conclude that a trial court may utilize a multiplier in a contingency fee case only in extraordinary circumstances. In my opinion, Pennsylvania v Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 483 US 711; 107 S Ct 3078; 97 L Ed 2d 585 (1987), is not controlling in the present case, because it was a *45plurality opinion and because it construed a specific federal statute not involved in this case.
Furthermore, although five justices argued that use of a risk multiplier was improper under the circumstances of that case, five justices also held that Congress did not intend to foreclose trial courts from considering the contingency of nonpayment in setting reasonable attorney fees under statutory fee-shifting provisions.
Rather, I would hold that on remand the trial court must set forth its reasons for utilizing a multiplier in awarding attorney fees. This Court could then consider such findings, together with other appropriate factors, in determining whether the award of attorney fees by the trial court is reasonable.