Opinion
Civil Action No. 99-2028, Section "C"(3)
August 28, 2001
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Remittitur or New Trial and to Grant Discretionary Stay. Having reviewed the memoranda of counsel, the record and the applicable law, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion.
Fifth Circuit jurisprudence provides that "where a damage award is excessive or so large as to appear contrary to right or reason, the award is generally subject to remittitur. . . ." Marcel v. Placid Oil Co., 11 F.3d 563, 568 (5th Cir. 1994); see also Caldarera v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 705 F.2d 778, 786 (5th Cir. 1983) (holding that a verdict is excessive if it is "contrary to right reason" or "entirely disproportionate to the injury sustained"). Defendants maintain that the award of general damages to Jason Peterson in the amount of $50,000 and the award to Charles Peterson of $48,000 was "grossly disproportionate to the injuries that were established by evidence at trial," and argue that the Court should grant a new trial on the issue of damages alone if plaintiffs refuse to accept a remittitur award. See Defendants' Memorandum at 3.
Having presided over the two-day trial, the Court finds that the verdict was neither excessive nor "entirely disproportionate" to the injuries sustained. The jury observed the physical scarring on the bodies of the plaintiffs and heard significant testimony from Plaintiffs, their mother and their treating physician regarding the physical and mental suffering experienced by them. The jury also had the benefit of the testimony of two experts — Plaintiffs' treating physician, Dr. Thirstrup, and Defendants' expert, Dr. Laborde — in making their decision regarding the nature and severity of Plaintiffs' injuries. Plaintiffs and their mother offered a variety of explanations to the jury, including the cost of the therapy sessions, as to why Plaintiffs were not able to attend physical therapy more regularly, and the jury had the ability to assess the credibility of those explanations. Defendants also offer no evidence to support their allegation that the jury ignored the mitigation charge contained in the jury instructions, other than the fact that they disagree with the ultimate damages award arrived at by the jury.
Although Plaintiffs did not offer specific evidence regarding their exact financial situation during the period of time at issue in the case, the Court finds no error in Plaintiffs' counsel's argument to the jury that the cost of the therapy sessions was one of the reasons, among others (e.g., pain associated with the therapy), that Plaintiffs did not attend more regularly.
The Court also rejects Defendants' argument that the Court erred in excluding the testimony of Mr. Heffner. In light of the fact that Defendants had conceded liability for the accident, the Court ruled that the testimony of Mr. Heffner regarding who was driving the car at the time of the accident was irrelevant to the remaining issue concerning the quantum of Plaintiffs' damages. Furthermore, during the trial itself, Defendants dedicated a significant portion of their cross-examination to impeaching the credibility of Charles Peterson with his prior inconsistent statements. Therefore, the Court reaffirms its decision that any probative value of Mr. Heffner's testimony as either a fact or an impeachment witness would have been far outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See Fed.R.Evid. 403.
Defendants also object to the Court's decision preventing them from specifically asking about Plaintiffs' prior work history. However, the Court notes that Defendants were permitted to, and in fact did inquire as to how Plaintiffs spent their days prior to and since the accident. The Court finds no error in its decision to preclude questions that were only designed to elicit the specific employment status of the Plaintiffs.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court rejects all of Defendants' assignments of error. IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion is hereby DENIED.