Badahman v. Catering St. Louis
395 S.W.3d 29
Mo.2013Background
- CSL terminated Badahman in July 2008 after a meeting with Erker about performing duties without a driver's license.
- Badahman sued under the MHRA for disability discrimination and retaliation, seeking about $44,979.72 in lost wages and emotional damages.
- Jury awarded $11,250 in compensatory damages and $2,000 in punitive damages against CSL; Erker was not liable for punitive damages.
- Badahman moved for additur or, alternatively, a new trial on damages pursuant to § 537.068 and Rules 78.01, 78.02; the circuit court granted.
- The circuit court set 30 days for accepting a higher compensatory award or a new trial on damages only; CSL refused additur and elected a new trial on damages.
- On appeal, CSL challenged § 537.068 as violating the right to jury trial, and argued the court abused its discretion in granting a new trial on damages only; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 537.068 violate the right to jury trial? | Badahman | CSL | Constitutionality upheld; statute consistent with Missouri remittitur/additur framework. |
| What is the proper standard of review for additur/remittitur when a new trial is elected? | Badahman | CSL | Appellate review is for weight of the evidence; overruled conflicting precedents; standard articulated as reviewing the weight-of-evidence ruling. |
| Did the circuit court abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial on damages only? | Badahman | CSL | No abuse; damages-only new trial permissible where damages and liability are not substantially intertwined. |
| Is the damages award against the weight of the evidence warranting a new trial on damages? | Badahman | CSL | Yes; evidence supported a higher compensatory award and the court acted within discretion to order a new trial on damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Firestone v. Crown Center Redevelopment Corp., 693 S.W.2d 99 (Mo. banc 1985) (remittitur/additur statutory framework enacted; weight of evidence standard discussed)
- Dodd v. Mo.-Kan.Tex. R. Co., 193 S.W.2d 905 (Mo.1946) (early remittitur/remittitur standard cited and criticized)
- Wiley v. Homfeld, 307 S.W.3d 145 (Mo.App.2009) (court's standard of review for remittitur/additur discussed and criticized by majority)
- Steuernagel v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., 238 S.W.2d 426 (Mo. banc 1951) (remittitur/additur; standard for reviewing weight of evidence)
- Massman Const. Co. v. Missouri Hwy. & Transp. Com’n, 914 S.W.2d 801 (Mo. banc 1996) (additur/remittitur grounds and necessity of new trial when grounds exist)
- Tucci v. Moore, 875 S.W.2d 115 (Mo. banc 1994) (two-step analysis for additur/remittitur; ground rules clarified)
- Gentry by Gentry v. Douglas, 744 S.W.2d 788 (Mo. banc 1988) (trial court's discretion to grant a new trial when verdict against weight of evidence)
- Collier v. City of Oak Grove, 246 S.W.3d 923 (Mo. banc 2008) (standard for reviewing weight-of-evidence rulings on remittitur/additur)