Suzanne Bishop West v. Epiphany Salon & Day Spa, LLC
E2016-01860-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- On Jan 12, 2012, Suzanne Bishop West received a facial at Epiphany Salon; she experienced a burning reaction and later alleged lasting facial injury.
- Epiphany conceded liability in amended answer (May 2016); the jury trial (July 2016) proceeded solely on damages.
- The jury awarded West $125,000 for economic and non‑economic damages.
- Epiphany moved for remittitur or new trial; the trial court found the verdict excessive and suggested remittitur reducing the award to $47,800 (a $77,200 reduction).
- The trial court detailed its reasoning: economic damages shown ~ $8,613; limited proof of ongoing pain, mental suffering, or visible disfigurement; some permanent capillary damage visible only under magnification; court observation found no apparent disfigurement.
- West accepted the remittitur under protest to preserve appeal; the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s suggested remittitur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in suggesting remittitur reducing the jury award from $125,000 to $47,800 | West contended the jury verdict should stand and the reduction was improper | Epiphany argued the verdict was excessive compared to proof of economic and non‑economic damages and remittitur was appropriate | Court affirmed trial court: remittitur justified, not shown to be total destruction of verdict, and evidence does not preponderate against the reduction |
Key Cases Cited
- Foster v. Amcon Intern., Inc., 621 S.W.2d 142 (Tenn. 1981) (trial judge next most competent after jury to assess amount of verdict)
- Meals ex rel. Meals v. Ford Motor Co., 417 S.W.3d 414 (Tenn. 2013) (no numerical cutoff; remittitur review principles)
- Johnson v. Nunis, 383 S.W.3d 122 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012) (three‑step remittitur review and deference to trial judge)
- Long v. Mattingly, 797 S.W.2d 889 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990) (framework for reviewing remittitur)
- Palanki ex rel. Palanki v. Vanderbilt Univ., 215 S.W.3d 380 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (remittitur as alternative to new trial when only damages are disputed)
- Jenkins v. Commodore Corp. S., 584 S.W.2d 773 (Tenn. 1979) (courts should be cautious in reducing verdicts)