Court Opinion

ID: 9711246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:27:24.867486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:03.135101
License: Public Domain

Garfield, C. J.
(concurring specially) — I concur in the result and in the opinion except for Division XI concerning the size of the verdict.
My unwillingness to concur in that division is because I think it leaves the impression the only ground upon which we *1400interfere with, a verdict, by reason of its amount, -is that it' is so flagrantly excessive as to be the result of passion, prejudice or undue influence.
•It should be clearly pointed out -we have repeatedly held, especially in many recent cases, that we also interfere with a verdict, because-of its size, where it is lacking’in evidentiál support although there may be no passion or prejudice.
Henneman v. McCalla, 260 Iowa 60, 80, 148 N.Y.2d 447, 459, accurately states the rule to which we are -firmly committed: Beyer v. City of Dubuque, 258 Iowa 476, 489, 139 N.W.2d 428, 436, cited in the Henneman opinion, also correctly sets out the -rule. Shover v. Iowa Lutheran Hospital, 252 Iowa 706, 718, 107 N.W.2d 85, 92, cited in the -Beyer case, -in turn cites four -recent opinions in support of the prevailing rule.
In Giarratano v. The Weitz Co., 259 Iowa 1292, 1814, 147 N.W.2d 824, 837, we reduced a verdict for $75,000 by' one third’’upon pain of a new trial. - The ground assigned for the order is that “the verdict is clearly above what th¿ record -justifies-,” citing and approving what is said in Tedrow v. Fort Des Moines Community Services, Inc., 254 Iowa 198, 201—204, 117 N.W.2d 62, 66-68. Neither the Gia-rratano nor Tedrow opinion; indicates -the -verdict resulted from -passion or'prejudiee or that a showing thereof .is a necessary ground for --appellate relief. . ‘
Miller v. Town of Ankeny, 253 Iowa 1055, 1063, 114 N.W.2d 910, 915, states “We think a trial court and, to a lesser extent, this -court should not approve a verdict -found to be excessive because not supported by sufficient evidence even in the absence of passion, prejudice or sympathy on the part of the jury.” Four recent cases are analyzed, with quotations from three, supporting the statement. Fredrickson v. Heline, 252 Iowa 92, 96, 106 N.W.2d 74, 77, is also cited.
Mazur v. Grantham, 255 Iowa 1292, 1303, 125 N.W.2d 807, 813, 814, makes .this important pronouncement:
“In considering the size of verdicts we have repeatedly referred to passion and prejudice, shock the conscience, failure to administer substantial justice, the rule of fair compensation, and lack of support in the evidence. See Engman v. City of *1401Des Moines, 255 Iowa 1039, 125 N.W.2d 235; Rauch v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 252 Iowa 1, 104 N.W.2d 607; Ferris v. Riley, 251 Iowa 400, 101 N.W.2d 176; Hamdorf v. Corrie, 251 Iowa 896, 101 N.W.2d 836; Stevenson v. Abbott, 251 Iowa 110, 99 N.W.2d 429; and Jesse v. Werner & Werner Co., 248 Iowa 1002, 82 N.W.2d 82. See also 48 Iowa Law Review, pages 649-665. It seems fundamental the most important of these is support in the evidence. If the verdict has support in the evidence the others will hardly arise, if it lacles support they may all arise. The real question in most cases, and here, is the amount and sufficiency of evidence to support the award made” (emphasis added).
Francis v. Barnes, 256 Iowa 1176, 1181, 130 N.W.2d 683, 686, also clearly expresses the point sought to be made herein:
“Defendant urges the verdicts to both husband and wife were excessive because not supported by the evidence. He cites Miller v. Town of Ankeny, 253 Iowa 1055, 114 N.W.2d 910; Ferris v. Riley, 251 Iowa 400, 101 N.W.2d 176; Heerde v. Kinkade, 249 Iowa 85, 85 N.W.2d 908; and Jurgens v. Davenport, Rock Island and Northwestern Railway Co., 249 Iowa 711, 88 N.W.2d 797, for the proposition a verdict may be excessive because it is not supported by the evidence in the absence of passion and prejudice and that justice may be effectuated by a remittitur. To these might be added Engman v. City of Des Moines, 255 Iowa 1039, 125 N.W.2d 235.”
Several other Iowa eases which support this opinion include Booth v. General Mills, Inc., 243 Iowa 206, 211, 49 N.W.2d 561, 563; Soreide v. Vilas & Co., 247 Iowa 1139, 1153, 78 N.W.2d 41, 49; Castner v. Wright, 256 Iowa 638, 657, 127 N.W.2d 583, 594, 128 N.W.2d 885.
Larson, Snell, Moore, Stuart, Mason and Rawlings, JJ., join in the foregoing special concurrence.