269 A.3d 413
N.J.2022Background
- Retarus distributed a 2014 brochure comparing competitors that allegedly defamed Graphnet; Graphnet sued in 2016.
- Most claims were dismissed pretrial for Graphnet’s discovery failures; only defamation/slander proceeded to a six-day jury trial.
- The court instructed the jury largely using Model Civil Jury Charge 8.46D; that charge described nominal damages both as something the jury could “award . . . to compensate” and as amounts “not designed to compensate.”
- The jury found defamation but awarded $0 in compensatory damages and $800,000 in nominal damages.
- The trial court reduced the nominal award to $500 by remittitur without Graphnet’s consent; the Appellate Division vacated that remittitur and ordered a new trial on nominal damages only.
- The Supreme Court held remittitur without plaintiff consent was improper and, because the nominal-damages instruction was internally contradictory and could have caused the jury to misallocate compensatory awards into nominal damages, ordered a new trial on all damages; it defined nominal damages as a token amount not exceeding $500 and referred Model Charge 8.46D for revision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a court may grant remittitur without plaintiff consent | Trial court lacked authority to remit without Graphnet's consent; remittitur requires plaintiff choice | Remittitur may be entered to avoid a new trial; plaintiff waived objections to instructions | Remittitur requires plaintiff consent; trial court erred in remitting without consent |
| Whether an erroneous jury instruction on nominal damages requires a new damages trial on all damages or only nominal damages | The jury instruction conflated nominal and compensatory damages, so entire damages award may be infected => new trial on all damages | Jury found no compensatory damages; any error affects nominal damages only => new trial limited to nominal damages | Instruction likely affected allocation between compensatory and nominal awards; new trial on all damages required |
| Proper definition and monetary scope of nominal damages in NJ | Model charge is flawed; court should clarify and limit nominal damages | $800,000 award was excessive regardless of label; jury could have awarded compensatory damages | Nominal damages are a token sum of no more than $500 under NJ law |
| Whether Model Civil Jury Charge 8.46D adequately instructs juries on nominal damages | Model charge is internally inconsistent and should be revised | Model charge is authoritative guidance and was properly applied | Model 8.46D is flawed as written; Court supplied a corrected instruction and referred the charge to the Committee for amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuevas v. Wentworth Grp., 226 N.J. 480 (2016) (remittitur standard and necessity of plaintiff's choice to accept remitted award or elect a new trial)
- Orientale v. Jennings, 239 N.J. 569 (2019) (absence of mutual consent to remittitur requires a new damages trial)
- Nuwave Inv. Corp. v. Hyman Beck & Co., Inc., 221 N.J. 495 (2015) (erroneous damages instruction warrants a new trial on damages when the entire award may be influenced)
- W.J.A. v. D.A., 210 N.J. 229 (2012) (outlining compensatory vs. nominal damages in defamation context)
- Nappe v. Anschelewitz, Barr, Ansell & Bonello, 97 N.J. 37 (1984) (nominal damages are trivial/token and not aimed at compensating actual loss)
- Fertile v. St. Michael’s Med. Ctr., 169 N.J. 481 (2001) (remittitur may avoid a new trial but must respect parties' rights)
- Fischer v. Canario, 143 N.J. 235 (1996) (reviewing charge as a whole to determine whether it misled the jury)
- Mogull v. CB Com. Real Est. Grp., Inc., 162 N.J. 449 (2000) (model charges are useful but not binding; errors in verdict sheet or charge require reversal only if they caused unjust result)
- Das v. Thani, 171 N.J. 518 (2002) (erroneous jury instructions generally constitute reversible error)
- Baxter v. Fairmont Food Co., 74 N.J. 588 (1977) (standard that remittitur requires clear and convincing proof that award is a miscarriage of justice)