Court Opinion

ID: 9566127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:34:16.178384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:11.982490
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WHITING,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the other dissenters that the majority’s result is paradoxical; the majority opinion holds that Garraghty was entitled to claim the additional damages denied by the trial court, yet denies him the right to recover those damages on the ground that he cannot have the piecemeal relief he requests in his brief. But I think that the other dissenters’ approach is equally paradoxical; although Garraghty has essentially prevailed in these appeals, the other dissenters would take from Garraghty the $177,597 judgment to which all justices agree he would be entitled to, had he not insisted on a new trial.
The majority’s solution is to conclude that Garraghty would rather keep his judgment than risk its loss in a new trial, although the majority notes that no such claim was made on brief. However, during oral argument, when presented with the possibility that Garraghty might have to elect whether to take his judgment now or risk the loss of his entire claim in a new trial, Garraghty’s counsel responded in pertinent part to the Court’s several inquiries:
Justice, I would say if we had the opportunity, plaintiff, [if] he had his otherwise [valid] award sustained, would probably look very seriously at whether or not he would want to go through another trial.
*240It may be a double recovery. We may be looking at, say, well, we’ve got one and the Court may put us to terms, quite frankly.
I think, again, the Court could remand it giving the prevailing party the choice whether proceeding it [sic] or stop it at that point, not go forward any further.
I do not think that we have the right to make this election for Garraghty, especially since his counsel asked for that right in oral argument. Accordingly, I would require the exercise of that right before entry of our order. And I would not “throw out the baby with the bathwater,” as the other dissenters propose.