<i>He, Cuevas,</i> and the Law of Remittitur in New Jersey

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.