Orientale v. Jennings

Orientale v. Jennings

Opinion

 [*574]  [**809]  [***10]    JUSTICE ALBIN delivered the opinion of the Court.

Under our common law jurisprudence, when a jury's damages award is so grossly excessive that it shocks the judicial conscience, the trial judge may, with the consent of the plaintiff, grant a remittitur -- the highest award that, in the judge's view, could be sustained by the evidence. If the plaintiff accepts the remitted amount, the defendant is bound by that judicial finding, subject to the right to appeal. Likewise, when a jury's damages award is so grossly inadequate that it shocks the judicial conscience, the trial judge may, with the consent of the defendant, grant an additur -- an increased award that, in the judge's view, could be sustained by the evidence. If the defendant accepts the additional amount, the plaintiff is bound by that judicial finding, subject to the right to appeal.

 [*575]  The practice of judges setting damages awards through remittitur and additur -- without the consent of both parties -- has been well established for a long period in this State. That practice, however, was not recognized in the early common law. In the early common law, remittitur did not allow for the reduction of a jury's damages award as permitted [***11]  today, and additur did not exist.

In the appeal before us, plaintiff has challenged the constitutionality of additur on the basis that the judge acts as a "super jury" in setting a damages award in violation of the right to a jury trial. We take this occasion to reexamine, with the assistance of many stakeholders in the bar and bench, the current practices of both additur and remittitur.

Plaintiff and a number of amici curiae argue that the current practices of remittitur and additur are in tension with the constitutional right to trial by jury. We need not address the constitutional issue before us, however. Instead, we choose to exercise our superintendence over the common law and our constitutional authority over the practices and procedures of our courts to bring the use of remittitur and additur in line with basic notions of fair play and equity. We hold that ] when a damages award is deemed a miscarriage of justice requiring the grant of a new trial, then the acceptance of a damages award fixed by the judge must be based on the mutual consent of the parties.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.