Court Opinion

ID: 9661413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:38:35.539289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:28.317651
License: Public Domain

Rogosheske, Justice
(dissenting).
Although I unhesitatingly agree that the award is excessive as a mat*95ter Of -law, I am reluctant to join in ordering a remittitur even though a new trial on the issue of damages appears unwarranted.
I start with the premise that, short of granting a new trial, this court (as the majority opinion succinctly expresses) ought not to perform the trial court’s responsibility and reduce jury awards except in most unusual cases. I cannot classify this case as unusual in the sense that the trial judge passed upon the necessity of a remittitur and was directly confronted with determining the amount to be ordered. Although defendant argued excessiveness below and may have urged a reduction of the award, in the absence of a memorandum we can only infer that the award was held not to be excessive and, therefore, the propriety of a remittitur never arose. We have now held the award excessive as a matter of law. It seems to me that going beyond this and ordering a remittitur can only be justified upon the ground of expediency or perhaps because there are no recognized procedures for remanding the case to enable the trial judge to discharge a responsibility which, for a host of reasons, rests primarily upon him.
Our not infrequent use of appellate remittitur tends, I believe, to invite abdication of this responsibility. The most experienced trial lawyers and judges concede that translating personal injuries into money damages is a most difficult problem. When an award is challenged and the trial judge is confronted with the problem, the difficulties and the weight of the burden increase. He must perform it aided by few well-defined rules and frequently without the aid of counsel. Unless specifically directed, counsel avoid suggesting the amount of a remittitur lest their posttrial positions be weakened, or because they refuse to face realities or simply do not know what figures to suggest. Moreover, other incidents occurring during trial can complicate the problem, and diluting the sweetness of victory by reducing the verdict is often fraught with unpleasant and distressing consequences. One cannot easily criticize the participants at the trial level if they dispose of the problem by postponing it for action by this court, even though they may join in denouncing an appellate tribunal for functioning as a “superjury.”
In a case where our conclusion that the award is excessive directly conflicts with the trial judge’s decision, and where it appears that a re-*96mittitur would be proper, I believe a modified procedure could be fashioned which would be more consonant with fairness to the parties and, indeed, to the trial judge. In reviewing a claimed excessive award, the judge must first determine if it is excessive as a matter of law before he can properly address himself to whether or not a remittitur should be used to avoid the time and expense of a retrial. Although there is overlapping in the actual performance of these functions, experience suggests that separating the questions is the better practice. If an award is on the borderline between liberal and excessive, there is a natural tendency to characterize the award as liberal and uphold it rather than to declare it excessive and face the problems of choosing whether to grant a new trial on all issues, a new trial limited to damages, or a remittitur. In this case the record does not reveal that the trial judge squarely faced the task of determining the amount of a remittitur. Further, nothing in the record suggests that, upon being confronted with our unanimous holding that the award is excessive, he would suffer any offense or feel any reluctance to reexamine the testimony and perform a duty not previously discharged.
I would remand to the trial court with directions to accord the parties a hearing and thereupon to reduce the award in such amount as the trial judge deems justified by the evidence, subject to further review at the option of any aggrieved party. This would afford an opportunity for the trial judge to obtain the benefit of counsel’s conflicting views focused upon the single issue of the amount of the remittitur; and his decision, together with an accompanying memorandum, would be of inestimable aid to further review by his court, if such were in fact necessary. Furthermore, it would permit the trial judge to evaluate the arguments of the parties in the light of his observations of the conduct, appearance, and demeanor of the injured party at trial. No experienced trial lawyer or judge can successfully challenge the fact that inherent in every award or settlement of a personal injury suit is the appearance and demeanor of the injured party.
There are, of course, obvious criticisms of this suggested procedure. Among others, the trial judge may feel justifiably offended at being directed to reduce an award which he previously decided, after full *97hearing, should not be reduced. It must be observed that this could readily be avoided if the trial judge would accompany every posttrial order with an explanatory memorandum, for such is an essential aid to proper communication between trial and appellate courts. Inevitably, many cases would be returned for further review, thus adding delay and expense. Surely, however, simplified rules for such review could be adopted to alleviate this disadvantage. The task of formulating such rules cannot be an excuse for refusing to return a primary responsibility for discharging a judicial function to the court in the best position to perform it.