Court Opinion

ID: 9725286
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:38:55.036639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:13.411682
License: Public Domain

Rogosheske, Justice
(dissenting).
I agree that the verdict for Patrick McCormick is excessive, but I can*45not agree that it was not given under the influence of passion and prejudice.
In a trial of this kind, the cumulative effect of a final argument containing not only the acknowledged improprieties referred to, but also an invitation to jurors to award an amount they would believe adequate if they were the injured party and repeated disavowals of a desire to punish defendants to the point where the opposite inference may be suggested coupled with the court’s unrequested and unwarranted admonition concerning the existence of insurance, cannot, I submit, be regarded as nonprejudicial error. Moreover, at the very least, I believe that the lack of evidentiary support for the verdict, and the unfairness occasioned by the errors in the argument and charge, could only be adjusted, if at all, by a trial court remittitur. Although there is precedent for it, I question the wisdom of encouraging a trial court’s refusal to reduce an excessive verdict in a case of this kind by granting a remittitur at the appellate level. With all deference, I would grant a new trial on the issue of damages.