Allied Concrete Co. v. Lester, 736 S.E.2d 699

In consolidated appeals, the trial court's rulings on (i) new trial for plaintiff and attorney misconduct, (ii) mistrial for juror misconduct, and (iii) remittitur are at issue.
June 21, 2007, Isaiah Lester and Jessica Lester were involved in a fatal collision with a Allied Concrete truck driven by Sprouse; Sprouse pled guilty to manslaughter.
May 16, 2008, Lester, as administrator, sued Allied Concrete and Sprouse for wrongful death and Lester’s own injuries; claims were consolidated.
December 7, 2010, a three-day trial awarded Lester over $6.2 million for wrongful death and $2.35 million for personal injuries; Scotts received $1 million each for wrongful death.
Post-trial, Allied Concrete sought sanctions for Lester and Murray’s alleged Facebook spoliation and misconduct; the court sanctions totaled $722,000 against Lester and Murray.
The court gave an adverse inference instruction about Lester’s Facebook deletions, but found no liability impact; juror Hoy’s Meals on Wheels affiliation with the Allen Firm raised mistrial concerns that the court rejected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred in denying retrial for misconduct	Lester and Murray’s misconduct tainted the trial.	Misconduct was mitigated; fair trial occurred; no basis for retrial.	No abuse of discretion; retrial denied.
Whether trial court erred in denying mistrial for juror misconduct	Hoy’s relationship with Meals on Wheels and the Allen Firm required a mistrial.	Hoy’s silence was not dishonest; no substantial connection shown; no cause for mistrial.	No abuse of discretion; mistrial denied.
Whether remittitur was properly granted	The remittitur reflected improper comparison and failed to relate to Lester's actual damages.	Remittitur was justified due to bias and disproportionate award.	Remittitur reversed; verdict reinstated.
Whether sanctions and adverse inferences were properly treated	Spoliation and misrepresentations warranted heavier sanctions.	Sanctions were appropriate and properly mitigated.	Sanctions sustained; not controlling for final outcome on liability.

McDonough Power Equip. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548 (1984) (distinguishes honest mistakes from dishonest voir dire responses; importance of impartial jury)
Rose v. Jaques, 268 Va. 137 (2004) (rejects average verdict comparisons for excessiveness; emphasizes damages evidence)
Poulston v. Rock, 251 Va. 254 (1996) (three-part test for remittitur: excessiveness, proportionality to evidence, and reasoned evaluation)
Edmiston v. Kupsenel, 205 Va. 198 (1964) (remittitur abuse requires reasonable relation between remitted award and evidence)
Government Micro Resources, Inc. v. Jackson, 271 Va. 29 (2006) (two-step analysis for remittitur; consider evidentiary damages and proportionality)
Shepard v. Capitol Foundry of Va., 262 Va. 715 (2001) (requires evaluating damages in light of evidence; remedy must reflect evidence)
Bassett Furniture Indus., Inc. v. McReynolds, 216 Va. 897 (1976) (remittitur standards and considerations for disproportionate awards)
Centra Health, Inc. v. Mullins, 277 Va. 59 (2009) (reaffirms fairness and substantial justice standard in trials)
Walsh v. Bennett, 260 Va. 171 (2000) (trial court's discovery sanctions reviewed for abuse of discretion)