Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Dimick v. Schiedt

Supreme Court of the United States · 1935 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureSeventh AmendmentJury TrialNew TrialAdditurRemittituradditurremittitur

Facts

The plaintiff sued in federal district court for personal injuries allegedly caused by the defendant's negligent operation of an automobile in Massachusetts. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $500. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, arguing among other things that the damages were inadequate. The trial court granted a new trial unless the defendant agreed to increase the award to $1500, and when the defendant consented, the motion for new trial was denied.

Issue

Whether a federal trial court may, consistent with the Seventh Amendment, deny a plaintiff's motion for a new trial based on inadequate damages by conditioning that denial on the defendant's consent to an increase in the jury's award. Put differently, may a federal court use additur in an action at law where no jury has awarded the increased amount?

Rule

In federal courts, the Seventh Amendment must be construed by reference to the common-law rules existing in 1791. Under those rules, except for obsolete or narrow historical exceptions not applicable here, a court could not increase damages awarded by a jury in an action at law; therefore, a federal court may not condition denial of a new trial on the defendant's consent to an increase in the verdict. Remittitur, though long accepted in federal practice, does not require recognition of additur because remittitur merely removes an excess already included in the jury's verdict, while additur adds an amount no jury has found.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a negligence action tried to a jury in federal district court in Denver, Maya Ortiz recovered $2,000 against Colin Mercer for injuries from a warehouse accident. Maya moved for a new trial, arguing the damages were plainly inadequate, and the judge denied the motion on condition that Colin consent to entry of judgment for $12,000; Colin consented.

Under the majority rule, was the judge's conditional order proper?

Explanation. The majority held that a federal court may not use additur in an action at law. The constitutional problem is that the increased amount was never found by any jury. Defendant consent does not solve that problem, because the plaintiff is still being deprived of a jury determination on the factual issue of damages. The Seventh Amendment is measured by common-law practice as of 1791, and the Court found no general authority for increasing a jury's damages award in such cases.