Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<i>He, Cuevas,</i> and the Law of Remittitur in New Jersey
It is well accepted and recognized by New Jersey's courts that compensatory damages should encompass no more than the amount that will make a plaintiff whole, which is the actual loss. Fair compensatory damages should neither reward a plaintiff nor punish a defendant, but should be commensurate with a plaintiff's loss. Caldwell v. Hayes, 136 N.J. 422, 433 (1994). Despite the established purpose of a compensatory damage award, there are occasions when a verdict is so excessive it could only have been arrived at in an effort to punish, rather than to compensate. In those instances of a “runaway” jury award, there are two generally recognized forms of relief available to address the excessive verdict: a new trial as to damages only, or remittitur.
Remittitur is designed to bring excessive damages awarded by a jury to the level the court knows is within the limits of a proper verdict, thereby avoiding the necessity of a new trial. Fertile v. St. Michael's Medical Center, 169 N.J. 481, 491 (2001). A trial court is permitted to order a remittitur when it determines that a jury's award is disproportionate to the injuries and the award rises to the level of shocking the court's conscience. Hinojo v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Co., 353 N.J. Super. 261, 277 (App. Div. 2002). A jury's verdict may be reduced when the trial court determines that the verdict is “wide of the mark.” Johnson v. Scaccetti, 192 N.J. 256, 281 (2007). “The goal is not for the judge to substitute his or her judgment for that of the jury, but to correct the jury's clear error or mistake.” Baxter v. Fairmont Food Company, 74 N.J. 588, 597 (1977). Moreover, a jury's damages verdict is not sacrosanct and can be reduced when affirming the award would arise to a miscarriage of justice. Id.
This article addresses the concept of remittitur and the current state of the law in New Jersey, and, in particular, how the trial courts are to analyze applications for remittitur since New Jersey's Supreme Court decided Cuevas v. Wentworth, 226 N.J. 480 (2016), on Sept. 19, 2016. Prior to Cuevas, Ming Yu He v. Miller, 207 N.J. 230, 248 (2011), was controlling, and provided guidance as to what a trial court could consider when determining whether a jury award should be remitted. Cuevas abrogated two of those areas of consideration.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?