Court Opinion

ID: 9570776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:26:08.437257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:13:25.744428
License: Public Domain

Currie, C. J., and Gordon, J.
(dissenting). The verdict exceeded the demand of the complaint by almost 300 percent. We would hold that as a matter of law this verdict was one upon which the court could not grant a judgment without offering to the defendant an option for a new trial.
It is a realistic fact that small cases are defended less vigorously than large cases. We believe that the trial court should have the discretion to grant an amendment to a complaint even after verdict when the verdict exceeds the ad damnum clause by a fraction — even a significant fraction. However, when the verdict is three times the amount of the demand, the impropriety of a post-verdict amendment should be apparent as a matter of law.
An ad damnum clause is a necessary part of a complaint under sec. 263.03 (3), Stats. Such a clause has heretofore served the useful purpose of focusing the attention of the defendant and his counsel upon the approximate area of exposure. We fear that the majority’s view will mean that hereafter defendants will have to resist the trial of every case with all-out effort, lest a vastly larger verdict be awarded in a case in which only a small or modest demand had been made.