Court Opinion

ID: 9740544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:37:01.323137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:18.757036
License: Public Domain

Otis, Justice
(dissenting).
I concur in holding that the damages awarded by the jury were inadequate as a matter of law but do not agree that the additur of $10,000 should be set aside in favor of a new trial on the issue of damages.
This matter required 8 days of trial and resulted in a transcript of nearly 1,000 pages, the greater part of which was devoted to the medical testimony of 9 witnesses. We have consistently encouraged trial courts to rectify verdicts which reflect an improper award of damages, and in my opinion the court here acted correctly in pursuing that policy.1
“* * * To warrant the granting of a new trial by this court on the ground of inadequate or insufficient damages, the record must indicate a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying the motion for a new trial.” Krueger v. Knutson, 261 Minn. 144, 156, 111 N. W. (2d) 526, 534.
While it is true that plaintiff claimed special damages exceeding $10,000, the record supports the conclusion implicit in the jury’s verdict *236and in the additur of the trial court that a substantial part of plaintiff’s damages resulted from causes unrelated to the accident. He worked every day for a month following the accident, during which time he did not consult a physician. For many years he had suffered from an illness which the jury could find contributed to his disability. In addition he sustained a prior injury to his back in 1957 and the effect of these disabilities the trial court was entirely competent to assess.
Where the court has exercised the discretion we have urged it to assume 2 and the adjustment is well within the reasonable limits of what the evidence supports, if the adverse party has consented to the revision of the award, in my opinion the interests of justice require that the matter be laid to rest. I would affirm.

“This practice [additur] avoids the necessity of a new trial with its accompanying expense and delay.” Genzel v. Halvorson, 248 Minn. 527, 534, 80 N. W. (2d) 854, 859.

 In Colgau v. Raymond, 275 Minn. 219, 225, 146 N. W. (2d) 530, 534, filed herewith, we held: “As we have said in many cases, we must be influenced by the fact that the trial court is in a much better position than are we to pass upon the question of whether a verdict is excessive or inadequate.”