Kevin R. Hough v. Shawn P. McKiernan
101 A.3d 853
| R.I. | 2014Background
- On Feb. 23, 2006, Shawn McKiernan assaulted Kevin Hough, causing severe traumatic brain injury; liability was not contested at trial.
- Hough underwent craniectomy and later cranioplasty, spent weeks in coma/rehab, continues to suffer headaches and loss of enjoyment of life.
- Trial occurred Nov. 28–Dec. 2, 2012; jury awarded Hough $1.75 million in damages.
- Defendant moved for remittitur and/or new trial, arguing the award was excessive and motivated by passion/prejudice.
- Trial justice granted remittitur to $925,000 (plaintiff accepted rather than retry), and judgment—plus substantial pre-judgment interest—was entered.
- Defendant appealed; Supreme Court reviews whether the trial justice properly exercised her authority to order remittitur/new trial and whether the reduced award was supported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial justice properly acted as superjuror in granting remittitur/new trial | Hough argued evidence of severe injury, pain, humiliation, and ongoing impairment supports substantial award | McKiernan argued original award was excessive, punitive, driven by sympathy, and not supported by medical expenses or lost wages | Trial justice correctly conducted independent review; remittitur to $925,000 was appropriate and supported by evidence |
| Whether the jury verdict of $1.75M shocked the conscience or reflected passion/prejudice | Hough maintained counsel’s demonstrative guideline did not request a specific excessive sum | McKiernan argued jury exceeded any guideline and counsel’s aid improperly influenced award | Trial justice found verdict reflected some sympathy/passion and shocked the conscience; reduction was warranted |
| Whether evidence supports compensatory damages for pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life | Hough pointed to credible medical testimony and testimony about rehabilitation, humiliation, and lasting effects | McKiernan emphasized relatively modest medical bills and no lost-wage claim | Court upheld trial justice’s finding that competent credible evidence supported award of $925,000 |
| Standard of appellate review for remittitur/new trial | Hough urged deference to jury’s award absent clear error | McKiernan urged reversal of final award as still excessive | Supreme Court affirms if trial justice conducted proper analysis, didn’t misconceive evidence, and was not clearly wrong; those criteria were met |
Key Cases Cited
- Connor v. Schlemmer, 996 A.2d 98 (R.I. 2010) (trial justice as superjuror reviewing weight and credibility of evidence)
- Seddon v. Duke, 884 A.2d 413 (R.I. 2005) (mem.) (role of trial justice on new trial motions)
- Kurczy v. St. Joseph Veterans Ass’n, 713 A.2d 766 (R.I. 1998) (trial justice’s independent appraisal of evidence)
- Bourdon’s, Inc. v. Ecin Industries, Inc., 704 A.2d 747 (R.I. 1997) (trial justice need not exhaustively analyze evidence but must reference facts motivating conclusion)
- Reccko v. Criss Cadillac Co., 610 A.2d 542 (R.I. 1992) (remittitur proper when award is unreasonable or excessive)
- Zarrella v. Robinson, 460 A.2d 415 (R.I. 1983) (remittitur justified when verdict shocks the conscience)
- Murray v. Bromley, 945 A.2d 330 (R.I. 2008) (appellate review: affirm if trial justice conducted appropriate analysis and was not clearly wrong)
- Candido v. University of Rhode Island, 880 A.2d 853 (R.I. 2005) (standard for setting aside verdict)
- Kwarciak v. Star Market, 506 A.2d 545 (R.I. 1986) (remittitur and trial-justice reasoning requirements)