On August 30, 2013, in a pre-tort cap case, the Tennessee Supreme Court unanimously reinstated a $43.8 million compensatory damage verdict in a personal injury case that had been remitted to $12.9 million by the Court of Appeals. The opinion is important, not only for the discussion of the procedural aspects and standard of review for a remittitur, but more importantly because of the fact that the court approved and reinstated a $39.5 million non-economic damage award in a personal injury case.
In Meals v. Ford Motor Company, the jury returned a general compensatory damage verdict for a six year old child who sustained permanent paralysis and other serious injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident caused by a driver under the influence. The jury found Ford 15% at fault based on product liability claims relating to the seat belt system in the vehicle in which the child was an occupant. The remaining fault was assigned to the non-party at-fault driver, and the child's father, who improperly belted the child, using only the lap portion of the three point seat belt. Ford's share of the jury verdict was close to $6.6 million.
Following the trial, the trial judge approved the verdict in her role as thirteenth juror, denying Ford's motion for new trial, in which it contended that the verdict was excessive. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals sua sponte suggested a remittitur, reducing the entire verdict to $12.9 million, based on its conclusion that the amount of the jury's non-economic damage award demonstrated sympathy. The Court of Appeals reduced the non-economic award from $39.5 million, to $8.6 million, which was approximately twice the proven economic damages of $4.3 million.
In connection with reinstating the verdict, the primary issue considered by the Tennessee Supreme Court was whether the award of $39.5 million in non-economic damages was within the range of reasonableness, taking the "strongest legitimate view of all the evidence in favor of the verdict" as an appellate court is required to do if the trial judge approves the verdict in the role as thirteenth juror. Writing for the Court, Justice Sharon G. Lee noted that "the material evidence analysis is very deferential to the award by the jury and the judgment of the trial court when it affirms the verdict as the thirteenth juror." The Court reviewed the evidence regarding the minor plaintiff's catastrophic injuries, noting that "[a] jury has wide latitude in assessing non-economic damages" and that the plaintiff is not required to prove the monetary value of non-economic damages. While the Court noted that other "similar" cases can be examined in connection with examining the reasonableness of a verdict, it acknowledged that the pool of information regarding other verdicts (and settlements) is often limited and that each case must be reviewed on its own merits. Reinstating the jury verdict, the Court held that although the Meals verdict may have been on the high end of the range of reasonableness, it was within that range and was sustainable.
Dan Berexa
Nashville, Tennessee
Comments