Committee Tip:
Before conducting a remittitur or additur hearing, the court may wish to consider submitting a case to post-verdict mediation in an attempt to allow the parties to resolve the judgment amount without court intervention.
If the only error in the trial is that the amount of damages are either excessive or inadequate, the trial court “may deny a motion for new trial on condition that within 14 days the nonmoving party consent in writing to the entry of judgment in an amount found by the court to be the lowest (if the verdict was inadequate) or highest (if the verdict was excessive) amount the evidence will support.” MCR 2.611(E)(1).
Remittitur is the process by which an excessive jury verdict is reduced. Pippen v Denison Div of ABEX Corp, 66 Mich App 664, 674 (1976). “In determining whether remittitur is appropriate, the proper consideration is whether the jury award was supported by the evidence.” Landin v Healthsource Saginaw, Inc, 305 Mich App 519, 546 (2014). “In reviewing motions for remittitur, courts must be careful not to usurp the jury’s authority to decide what amount is necessary to compensate the plaintiff, . . . [and] should exercise the power of remittitur with restraint.” Id. at 547.
Although the trial court may examine other factors when considering remittitur, the inquiry “should be limited to objective considerations relating to the actual conduct of the trial or to the evidence adduced.” Palenkas v Beaumont Hosp, 432 Mich 527, 532 (1989). Objective factors to take into account when considering remittitur include:
“• whether the verdict was the result of improper methods, prejudice, passion, partiality, sympathy, corruption, or mistake of law or fact;
• whether the verdict was within the limits of what reasonable minds would deem just compensation for the injury sustained; and
• whether the amount actually awarded is comparable with awards in similar cases within the state and in other jurisdictions.” Palenkas, 432 Mich at 532-533 (bullets added).
If money damages awarded by a jury are grossly excessive as a matter of law, the judge may order remittitur, a complete new trial, or a trial limited to the issue of damages. MCR 2.611(A)(1)(c); MCR 2.611(E)(1). See Gilbert v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 470 Mich 749, 763-764 (2004), for an analysis of an excessive verdict for which relief was permitted under MCR 2.611(A)(1)(c).
Additur is the procedural process by which the trial court “increases the jury’s award of damages to avoid a new trial on grounds of inadequate damages.” Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed).
“The proper consideration when reviewing a grant or denial of additur is whether the jury award is supported by the evidence.” Setterington v Pontiac Gen Hosp, 223 Mich App 594, 608 (1997). “The trial court’s inquiry is limited to objective considerations regarding the evidence adduced and the conduct of the trial.” Id.
If money damages awarded by a jury are grossly inadequate as a matter of law, the judge may order (1) additur, (2) a complete new trial, or (3) a trial limited to the issue of damages. MCR 2.611(A)(1)(c); MCR 2.611(E)(1).
A ruling on a motion for either remittitur or additur is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Palenkas v Beaumont Hosp, 432 Mich 527, 531 (1989); Hill v Sacka, 256 Mich App 443, 460 (2003).