Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
54. Should the court grant the employer's motion for a new trial?
A municipal employee sued her former employer in federal court, claiming her employer violated a federal statute by failing to promote her to a higher-paying position and that, as a result, the employee suffered emotional distress. The evidence at trial established that the employee suffered $15,000 in economic damages at most because of the promotion denial. The only evidence presented at trial to support the emotional distress claim was the employee's testimony that, on one occasion, she sought medical attention for chest pain and anxiety. The employer objected to the jury instructions concerning the award of damages, but the court overruled the objection. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the employee and awarded $500,000 in damages. The employer moved for a new trial.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
In order to raise an issue regarding the inadequacy of instructions on appeal, a party who wishes to make an objection must do so before the jury retires. Under FRCP 51(c), a party who objects to an instruction or the failure to give an instruction must state the objection on the record, stating distinctly the matter objected to and grounds for the objection.
Judges in both state and federal courts generally have wide discretion to grant a motion for a new trial because such a motion runs less of a risk of abridging the Seventh Amendment than a directed verdict, or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
FRCP 59 sets different standards for granting new trials in jury and non-jury cases. When there has been a jury trial, the judge may order a new trial for any reason for which a new trial has been granted in an action at law in federal court. When the action was tried without a jury, a new trial may be granted for any of the reasons an equity court would have granted a rehearing.
A motion for a new trial may be filed based on numerous grounds, including that the verdict is either excessive or inadequate. If a federal judge believes the jury's damages award is too high (excessive) such that it «shocks the conscience,» or, in a diversity case, if the award meets the applicable state standard for excessiveness, the judge may order a new trial or offer the alternative of a reduction in damages («remittitur»). See Gasperini v. Center, 518 U.S. 415 (1996) (requiring federal trial courts to apply a state standard when considering a motion for a new trial based on excessiveness of the verdict).
A judge may find the jury's verdict excessive or inadequate but may wish to avoid ordering a new trial. This commonly occurs where the judge is confident that the jury decided the issue of liability properly but has miscalculated damages. A judge in such a case may conditionally order a new trial. The new trial will take place unless the plaintiff agrees to a reduction of the damages to a specified amount. This is called remittitur. Additur is when the judge finds the damages inadequate and orders a conditional new trial unless the defendant consents to increase the damages. Remittitur is allowed in federal practice, but additur is not.
D is correct. The doctrine of «remittitur» allows a trial judge who believes the jury's award of damages is so excessive as to «shock the conscience» to order a new trial. An excessive verdict is a well-recognized ground for ordering a new trial.
Here, the evidence showed that the employee suffered a maximum of $15,000 in economic damages and minimal evidence was offered regarding the emotional distress claim, so the court may very well find that the $500,000 jury award «shocks the conscience» and order a new trial.
A is incorrect. Judges in federal court may grant new trials where they find that the damages awarded denied justice to one of the parties and shocks the conscience. This is true even if the jury heard the evidence and evaluated the credibility. A federal court may offer the option of ordering a new trial or lowering the damages.
B is incorrect. If a judge thinks that an award is too excessive, he or she is permitted to either order a new trial or offer the alternative of remittitur. A judge does not, however, have the authority to simply lower the amount of damages awarded by the jury. The court may order the new trial but offering the option of remittitur must be paired with the option for a new trial if that is the route the court decides to take. The court may, as stated above, find the damages excessive and order a new trial.
C is incorrect. The employer's timely objection to the jury instructions is not outcome-determinative. Although a proper objection to jury instructions may be the basis for an appellate claim, the issue here is whether the trial court should grant the motion for a new trial. Here, the court may find that the jury's award of damages «shocks the conscience,» and such a finding allows the court to order a new trial. As an aside, the standard for appealing jury instructions is not the same as the standard to award a new trial.