Estate of Hanscome v. Evergreen at Foothills, L.L.C.
254 P.3d 397
Ariz. Ct. App.2011Background
- Colleen Hanscome, personal representative of Noyes W. Hanscome's estate, sues for elder abuse under APSA and for negligence and wrongful death on behalf of herself and Chandler.
- Noyes Hanscome died after treatment at Evergreen Foothills; alleged substandard care caused premature, painful death.
- Jury awarded Chandler $1.8 million for wrongful death, Colleen $0, and Noyes' estate $200,000; overall judgment included $2 million plus costs.
- Defendants moved for new trial; argued punitive damages issue inflated Chandler's damages; challenged instructions on collateral proceeds and record spoliation; challenged closing argument timing.
- Court proposed remittitur for Chandler ($500,000) and additur for Colleen ($200,000) in lieu of a new trial; Colleen rejected remittitur and Defendants rejected additur.
- Trial court ultimately ordered a new trial on damages; Colleen appealed; Defendants cross-appealed on additur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remittitur for Chandler was proper | Hanscome urged substantial evidence supported $1.8M; court misapplied standard | Court should reduce damages to $500,000 due to range of credible evidence | Remittitur vacated; rehearing required under proper standard |
| Whether additur for Colleen was proper when she received zero damages | Colleen showed substantial emotional/financial loss; additur appropriate | Additur not permitted where jury awarded zero damages | Additur improperly granted; reversed |
| Whether Rule 59(g) allows a non-moving party to obtain a new trial | Rule 59(g) supports relief for non-moving party when moving party seeks new trial | Non-moving party cannot obtain new trial absent timely request | Non-moving party cannot obtain new trial; timing strict |
| Proper standard for evaluating whether damages support the verdict | Jury verdict reflects damages for love, comfort, and companionship; within range | Potential misapplication of damages standards; punitive context influenced damages | Court must assess whether substantial evidence supports the verdict; if not, new trial ordered |
| Effect of remittitur/additur on the overall verdict and new-trial remedy | Remittitur/additur should preserve jury verdicts where possible | Remittitur/additur appropriate to avoid new trial when verdicts are out of proportion | Remand to reconsider under correct standard; new trial may be conditioned on remittitur |
Key Cases Cited
- Larriva v. Widmer, 101 Ariz. 1 (Arizona Supreme Court 1966) (damages review limited; cannot overturn absent passion/prejudice)
- Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix, 192 Ariz. 51 (Arizona Supreme Court 1998) (verdicts must shock the conscience to justify remittitur)
- Creamer v. Troiano, 108 Ariz. 573 (Arizona Supreme Court 1972) (verdict within credible evidence should be upheld)
- Ogden v. J.M. Steel Erecting, Inc., 201 Ariz. 32 (Arizona Court of Appeals 2001) (uphold verdict if substantial evidence supports it)
- Stallcup v. Rathbun, 76 Ariz. 63 (Arizona Supreme Court 1953) (remittitur available for large but not shocking verdicts)
- Young Candy & Tobacco Co. v. Montoya, 91 Ariz. 363 (Arizona Supreme Court 1962) (limits on remittitur when verdict is within range of evidence)
- Sedillo v. City of Flagstaff, 153 Ariz. 478 (Arizona Court of Appeals 1987) (additur unavailable where survivors received zero damages; may award new trial)
- State v. Burton, 20 Ariz. App. 491 (Arizona Court of Appeals 1973) (additur not available where no damages awarded)
- Tarlton v. Exxon, 688 F.2d 973 (Fifth Circuit 1982) (federal rule deemed mandatory for new-trial timing; non-moving party not entitled)
- White v. Greater Ariz. Bicycling Ass'n, 216 Ariz. 133 (Arizona Court of Appeals 2007) (recognizes loss of love, comfort, guidance in wrongful death damages)