Court Opinion

ID: 9749249
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:29:34.910494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:45.557022
License: Public Domain

Griffith, J.,
dissenting in part I agree with the majority of
the court that the verdict of $250,000 for Nancy Towle appears excessive on the record before us. Were I acting on this record as a trial judge I would seriously consider setting the verdict aside or ordering a remittitur as a condition of the plaintiff keeping a verdict. My inability to concur with the action of the majority here stems from the fact that the record before us does not put us in the position of the trial judge. I note that in two previous cases where this court has reduced a verdict we were in the practical position of the trial judge as the initial reviewing authority with a complete record on damages. Belknap v. Railroad, 49 N.H. 358 (1870); Pierce v. Mowry, 106 N.H. 306, 210 A.2d 484 (1965).
I respectfully suggest that we lack the “tools ” (Pike v. Scribner, 103 N.H. 203, 205, 168 A.2d 114, 115 (1961)) to make the reduction the majority orders in this case. The injuries to Nancy Towle included scarring, crippled legs and substantial brain damage. Her speech, movements, physical appearance and demeanor as observed during the trial may properly have been a *359substantial factor in the decision of the trial judge that the verdict was not excessive. Under these circumstances we act upon an incomplete record. Rosenberg, Judicial Discretion of the Trial Court, Viewed from Above, 22 Syracuse L. Rev. 635, 664 (1971). I am unable to say, on this incomplete record, that the decision of the trial judge upholding the verdict was one “ no reasonable person would make. ” Roy v. Chalifoux, 95 N.H. 321, 324, 63 A.2d 226, 228 (1949); Roy v. Levy, 97 N.H. 36, 40, 79 A.2d 847, 851 (1951). Neither can I estimate a verdict that would set the limits of his reason.
I understand this decision is at most a disposition of the pres - ent case and is not a precedent for routine reduction of alleged excessive verdicts by this court. The latter would, I fear, run counter to our previous encouragement of trial judges to exercise in a meaningful way their duty “ [t]o inspect the product ” of a jury to determine whether the result was fair. Wisutskie v. Malouin, 88 N.H. 242, 245, 186 A. 769, 770 (1936); Hayes v. State, 109 N.H. 353, 355, 252 A.2d 431, 433 (1969). In any event 1 do not think this decision “will make trial judges’ duties any easier or their future performance any better. ” Kenison, C.J., dissenting in Fortuna v. Fortuna, 103 N.H. 547, 551, 176 A.2d 708, 711 (1961).