Karen Johnson v. Beverly Nunis and Farmer's Insurance Exchange
2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 277
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Collision: Nunis rear-ended Mitchell, pushing Mitchell into Johnson, causing Johnson severe injuries.
- Plaintiff/claims: Johnson sought compensatory damages for economic and non-economic losses from Nunis and Farmer’s Insurance Exchange.
- Judgment and remittitur: Jury awarded $116,493.22; trial court suggested remittitur of $45,000; Johnson accepted under protest.
- Procedural posture: Appellate review of remittitur; trial court reserved ruling on new trial; this Court initially improvidently certified finality under Rule 54.02, then reinstated appeal after remand.
- Damages issue: Appellate court required de novo review with deference to jury credibility; remittitur to be assessed item-by-item but court reduced total instead.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remittitur proper amount? | Johnson: jury verdict should not be reduced. | Farmer’s: verdict excessive; remittitur appropriate. | Remittitur reversed; reinstated full jury verdict. |
| Admission of stipulation to jury? | Stipulation to medical expenses unfair to Johnson; prejudice to Farmer’s defense. | Stipulation disclosed same material facts; no prejudice. | No reversible error; admissible. |
| Hearsay and related testimony impact? | Hearsay evidence supported wage awards. | Hearsay objections should have limited evidence. | Harmless error; denial of new trial affirmed. |
| Rule 54.02 certification and procedural posture? | Finality certification improper; appeal proper on merits. | Remittitur decision should stand; issue resolved on merits. | Procedural posture cured; remittitur reversal and reinstatement of verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Foster v. Amcon Int'l, 621 S.W.2d 142 (Tenn. 1981) (original jury-damages framework; deference to jury damages)
- Smith v. Shelton, 569 S.W.2d 421 (Tenn. 1978) (jury determines damages within credible proof range)
- Overstreet v. Shoney's, Inc., 4 S.W.3d 694 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (non-pecuniary damages require jury credibility; remittitur guidance)
- Long v. Mattingly, 797 S.W.2d 889 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990) (three-step remittitur review; presumption of correctness; role of thirteenth juror)
- Oglesby v. Riggins, No. W2010-01470-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 915583 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (remittitur framework; three-step analysis (note: WL cited; used for context))
- Palanki v. Vanderbilt Univ., 215 S.W.3d 380 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (delicate revision of verdict via remittitur; court’s restraint)
- Burlison v. Rose, 701 S.W.2d 609 (Tenn. 1985) (remittitur and appellate review discretion)