398 P.3d 90
Ariz.2017Background
- Michael Soto (plaintiff) was injured in a taxi collision; defendants admitted negligence and vicarious liability; trial was limited to damages.
- Michael had multiple fractures requiring surgery and hardware; medical bills were $40,538.40; no claim for future medicals or lost wages.
- Jury awarded $700,000 to Michael and $40,000 to his wife; defendants moved for new trial/remittitur under Ariz. R. Civ. P. 59.
- Trial court found Michael’s award “excessive and not supported by the evidence” and conditionally reduced (remitted) Michael’s award to $250,000 under Rule 59(i); plaintiffs rejected remittitur and appealed.
- The court of appeals affirmed without requiring detailed particularity under Rule 59(m); the Arizona Supreme Court granted review to clarify standards for remittitur/additur and the Rule 59(m) particularity requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for remittitur vs. new trial | Remittitur should be limited; trial judge must show a palpable defect to reduce a verdict. | Trial court may order remittitur for an award that reflects an exaggerated measurement of damages (less stringent than proof of passion/prejudice). | A trial court may order remittitur when award is an exaggerated measurement unsupported by evidence; new trial required only where verdict is tainted by passion, prejudice, or is flagrantly outrageous. |
| Does Rule 59(m) apply to conditional new-trial/remittitur under Rule 59(i)? | Rule 59(m) should constrain conditional grants; courts must state particularized grounds. | Court of appeals (and Hancock) previously held Rule 59(i) need not meet 59(m) particularity. | Rule 59(m) does apply to Rule 59(i); trial courts must state particularized grounds when granting conditional new trials/remittiturs. |
| Particularity required in Rule 59(m) orders | A terse, subjective conclusion (e.g., “unreasonable”) is insufficient; some advocate a heightened “palpable defect” standard in wrongful-death cases. | Defendants: detailed findings unnecessary; trial judge need not write lengthy opinions. | Rule 59(m) requires more than a recitation of statutory grounds; orders must give sufficient fact-specific detail to avoid appellate speculation but need not be full opinions. Failure to particularize shifts burden to appellee on appeal. |
| Constitutional challenge (right to jury trial) | Remittitur/new-trial rulings infringed Article 2 §23 (jury verdicts must stand). | Historic pre-statehood practice permitted remittitur/additur; remittitur followed by new trial preserves jury right. | Remittitur/new trial do not violate Arizona Constitution; right to jury trial does not preclude judicial correction of excessive awards, and a new trial was provided when remittitur was rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fischer, 242 Ariz. 44 (clarifying trial judge’s role as ‘thirteenth juror’ on new-trial motions)
- Reeves v. Markle, 119 Ariz. 159 (discussing Rule 59(m) particularity and deference)
- Yoo Thun Lim v. Crespin, 100 Ariz. 80 (holding mere recitation of grounds fails Rule 59(m))
- In re Estate of Hanscome, 227 Ariz. 158 (remittitur appropriate where award is exaggerated rather than driven by passion)
- Ahmad v. State, 240 Ariz. 380 (court of appeals’ wrongful-death remittitur decision discussed and rejected as novel)
- Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (U.S. Supreme Court upholding state remittitur procedure against Seventh Amendment challenge)
- Desert Palm Surgical Grp., P.L.C. v. Petta, 236 Ariz. 568 (consideration of comparable verdicts in assessing excessiveness)