Gardner v. Simpson Fin. - 963 F. Supp. 2d 72 (D. Mass. 2013)

Rule:

A district court is obligated to grant a remittitur or a new trial on damages only when the award exceeds any rational appraisal or estimate of the damages that could be based upon the evidence before it.

Facts:

In May 2008, the apartment building in which plaintiffs lived was destroyed by fire. Subsequently, plaintiffs brought an action for negligence against defendant Simpson Financing Limited Partnership, the entity that owned and operated the apartment complex. After trial, the jury found that Simpson was negligent in maintaining the premises and awarded each plaintiff compensatory damages for loss of property and emotional distress. Defendant filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, or, in the alternative, a remittitur or new trial.

Issue:

Should the court grant defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, or, in the alternative, a remittitur or new trial? 

Answer:

No, with respect to liability. Yes, with respect to the emotional distress damages.

Conclusion:

The court denied defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial, as to liability but granted its motion for a new trial or remittitur as to the tenants' emotional distress damages. According to the court, the defendant was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law following a verdict in favor of tenants in a negligence action arising from a fire that destroyed an apartment building, as the question of whether the landlord’s duty of care including moving mulch away from the building after experiencing multiple mulch fires over a short period of time was ascertainable by drawing on common knowledge and experience and did not require expert testimony. However, remittitur was required with respect to the emotional distress damages, as damages of $450,000 per plaintiff, notwithstanding the absence of evidence of medical or psychiatric diagnoses or expenses, were excessive.