Sometimes, when a personal injury case goes to trial, a jury will award a plaintiff a verdict that deviates from what is considered reasonable.  In those instances, defendants can make a post-trial motion pursuant to CPLR §4404(a) and §5501(c) seeking “remittitur,” or a reduced verdict.

In Talenti v. Consolidated Edison, the plaintiff was a 70-year-old woman who was known for being “vivacious” and fiercely independent.  One day, she was standing on the corner waiting to cross the street, she was suddenly catapulted into the air by an underground explosion.  When she landed, bricks, stones, and boiling water covered her and she was not rescued for approximately 40 minutes. The plaintiff sustained various injuries including a compound, comminuted fracture with a degloving injury resulting from bone that pierced her skin and ripped it off.  She underwent various surgeries as a result of the accident, and was in hospitals and rehabilitation facilities for over seven months before she was discharged home with a wheelchair, walker, and a home health aide.  The plaintiff’s injuries and medical treatment were presented to the jury in such a way that would make most people squeamish.

Consequently, a jury awarded the plaintiff $4,380,000 for past pain and suffering and $7,442,000 for future pain and suffering.  The defendants then moved to have the verdict reduced on the grounds that it was grossly excessive and materially deviated from reasonable compensation for the injuries.

After comparing the facts surrounding this accident and the plaintiff’s extensive treatment to a variety of other cases, the court granted the defendant’s motion and determined that the jury’s award materially deviated from what would be reasonable compensation.  The Court took into account the unique trauma involved in being injured from an explosion, and the various setbacks that the plaintiff experienced in her road to recovery.  Additionally, the Court noted that “personal injury awards, especially those for pain and suffering, are subjective opinions which are formulated without the availability, or guidance, of precise mathematical quantification.”  Nonetheless, the Court reasoned that the award was excessive in comparison to the cases cited by all parties and remanded the matter for a new damages trial unless the plaintiff stipulated to reduce the award for past pain and suffering from $4,380,000 to $2,500,000 and for future pain and suffering from $7,442,000 to $1,500,000.

When presented with a particularly frightening accident and gruesome descriptions of injuries and medical treatment, it stands to reason that a jury will award a plaintiff a hefty verdict for pain and suffering.  However, defense attorneys should always go to trial with a complete understanding of the “jury verdict value” for the alleged injuries despite how flamboyantly it may be presented by plaintiff’s counsel.  Even in cases involving bad injuries and a scary set of facts, defendants have the opportunity to have an award reviewed by the Court, and possibly reduced.

Thanks to Jeremy Seeman for his contribution to this post.