West v. Board of County Commissioners
2011 OK 104
Okla.2011Background
- Schreiner, a mother of five, died by drowning on a flooded rural road, despite warning signs and road closure.
- The jury awarded the estate $13,663 in a wrongful death action, which was reduced by Schreiner's comparative negligence; burial expenses were $5,800.
- The award left less than $2,000 to support five minor children after funeral and other reductions.
- West moved for a new trial on damages, arguing the award was unconscionable and inadequately supported by undisputed evidence.
- The trial court granted a new trial on damages; the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and this Court granted certiorari to review the damages ruling.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order granting a new trial on damages, holding the award was clearly excessive and shockingly inadequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly granted a new trial on damages. | West contends damages were supported and the award was reasonable. | The award was not manifestly inadequate and Clark limits new-trial relief. | Yes; the court affirmed the new-trial order for damages. |
| Whether the damages award for wrongful death can be set aside for passion or prejudice. | The jury’s award reflects passion and should be reconsidered. | Damages must be remitted only for statutory, not passion-based reasons. | Yes; passion and prejudice may justify a new trial when the award is unconscionable. |
| Whether Clark v. Bearden prohibits new-trial relief based on an inadequate damages award alone. | Clark controls and disfavors relief where the verdict is merely inadequate. | Clark allows repair of inadequacies where the award is clearly outrageous. | No; Clark allowing relief where the award is outrageous is distinguished and does not bar relief here. |
| Whether the verdict awarding $13,663 for a mother of five was so inadequate as to shock the conscience. | The award undervalues loss of support and companionship with family. | Lower court could not substitute its judgment for the jury’s value assessment. | Yes; the award was unconscionable and shockingly inadequate, justifying a new trial. |
| Whether the trial court complied with statutory standards for granting a new trial. | The court properly exercised discretion under 12 O.S.2001 § 651. | However, the appellate standard requires manifest error to overturn a jury verdict. | Yes; the court correctly applied the standard and affirmed remand for a new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. Bearden, 903 P.2d 309 (Okla. 1995) (new-trial relief for unconscionable damages; distinguishes from older cases)
- Aldridge v. Patterson, 276 P.2d 202 (Okla. 1954) (distinguishes when damages could exceed liquidated amounts; supports non-automatic reversal)
- Dodson v. Henderson Properties, Inc., 708 P.2d 1064 (Okla. 1985) (excess damages require evidence to be properly supported; remittitur context)
- Battles v. Janzen, 325 P.2d 444 (Okla. 1958) (distinguishes extent of damages; indicia of bias not enough to overturn improper damages)
- Propst v. Alexander, 898 P.2d 141 (Okla. 1995) (recognizes standards for new-trial relief and passion in damages)
- Rein v. Patton, 257 P.2d 280 (Okla. 1953) (early authority on damages, new-trial considerations)
- Sligar v. Bartlett, 916 P.2d 1383 (Okla. 1996) (polls multiple authorities on new-trial standards)
- Gov't Employees Insurance Co. v. Quine, 264 P.3d 1245 (Okla. 2011) (recognizes non-economic damages and general damages principles)