Ming Yu He v. Miller, 207 N.J. 230

Background

Ming Yu He was injured in a 2003 Auto collision with Enilma Miller; jury awarded $1,000,000 for pain and suffering and $100,000 to her husband for loss of consortium.
Past lost wages were $110,194.55 with future wage loss projected; plaintiff claimed substantial ongoing impairment and life impact.
Trial court granted remittitur reducing pain-and-suffering to $200,000 and per quod to $20,000, citing ‘shock to the judicial conscience’ and lack of observable pain.
Appellate Division reversed remittitur, reinstating the jury verdict; remanded for a complete, searching Johnson-based analysis.
On remand, trial court compared a number of similar and dissimilar cases, relying partly on its own experience and ‘feel of the case’ observations to justify remittitur.
Appellate Division again criticized the trial court’s reasoning, leading to Supreme Court review on whether remittitur standards were correctly applied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
What standard governs remittitur review?	He argues de novo review with deference to trial judge’s ‘feel of the case’ not appropriate.	Miller contends trial court’s deference to ‘feel of the case’ and experience is proper under Johnson/Fertile.	Remittitur requires de novo review with due deference to trial court’s feel-of-the-case, within a framework.
May trial courts rely on their own experience and non-identical verdicts for comparison?	Use of personal experience and non-identical verdicts is proper if accompanied by a robust factual analysis.	Appellate panel erred by rejecting appreciable reliance on comparable cases and judge’s experience.	Courts may rely on comparable verdicts and experience but must provide a meaningful factual analysis showing how awards differ or align.
Should appellate review defer to the trial court’s ‘feel of the case’ observations?	Appellate review should give greater weight to jury credibility and evidentiary findings rather than trial judge’s impressions.	Trial judge’s ‘feel of the case’ is a valid factor in remittitur analysis.	Appellate review must respect the trial court’s feel-of-the-case but not substitute its own conclusions; there must be detailed articulation.
Is it appropriate to remittitur only for pain-and-suffering while leaving wage awards intact?	Inconsistent treatment undermines the jury’s overall assessment and life-impact evidence.	Non-economic and economic damages can be evaluated separately; remittitur may target non-economic portions.	Remittitur can address the overall excessiveness, including non-economic and related awards, with careful record-supported analysis.
Does the record support the trial court’s remittitur under Johnson/Jastram Fertile standards?	Record shows jury’s awards were reasonable given plaintiff’s life impact and medical evidence.	Record contains sufficient comparables and ‘shock to conscience’ analysis supporting remittitur.	Record supports the remittitur when viewed in plaintiff-friendly light with substantial justification for adjustments.

Key Cases Cited

Johnson v. Scaccetti, 192 N.J. 256 (2007) (remittitur standard; deference to trial record and verdicts)
Fertile v. St. Michael’s Medical Ctr., 169 N.J. 481 (2001) (comparisons require factual analysis of how awards differ or are similar)
Jastram v. Kruse, 197 N.J. 216 (2008) (de novo review with deference to trial court’s feel of the case)
Baxter v. Fairmont Food Co., 74 N.J. 588 (1977) (presumption of correctness; remittitur as substitute for new trial)
Caldwell v. Haynes, 136 N.J. 422 (1994) (new trial on all issues if remittitur rejected because not fairly separable)
Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N.J. 2 (1969) (trial judge should not substitute his judgment for jury’s)
Besler v. Bd. of Educ. of West Windsor-Plainsboro, 201 N.J. 544 (2010) (de novo review of damages; upholding or vacating depending on record)
Johnson v. Scaccetti, 192 N.J. 256 (2007) (reiterated deference to jury’s credibility and need for de novo standard on appeal)