The opinion text provided does not describe the underlying events giving rise to the tort claim. It shows only that the plaintiff obtained a verdict in an amount the appellate court found too high. The appellate court set a maximum recoverable amount of $3,000. A juror-misconduct issue was mentioned only in the dissent, not in the majority disposition.
Issue
Whether the judgment and order should be reversed on the facts and a new trial granted, or instead modified by reducing the plaintiff's verdict to $3,000 if the plaintiff stipulated to that reduction.
Rule
When an appellate court concludes on the facts that a plaintiff's verdict is excessive, it may condition affirmance on the plaintiff's stipulation to reduce the verdict to the amount the court deems proper; otherwise, a new trial is granted.
🔒
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
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a negligence suit in Buffalo, Nora Kim obtained a $90,000 jury verdict against Lakeview Transit Co. On appeal, the court concludes that the evidence supports damages only up to $40,000.
Which appellate disposition is most consistent with the majority rule in this case?
Explanation. The majority approved a conditional remittitur: when the appellate court finds the verdict excessive on the facts, it may reverse and grant a new trial unless the plaintiff stipulates within a set period to reduce the verdict to the amount the court deems proper. If the plaintiff agrees, the judgment is modified and affirmed as modified. (Derived from Wagner v. International Railway (n.d.).)