Any remedy if a jury goes crazy in a civil trial?

Factual Questions
1

In a civil trial, if the jury finds for one party which flies in the face of the facts in the opinion of the other party, is there any remedy? Do appeals courts in civil trials look at the facts or are they just looking at procedural matters like they do in criminal trials?

Thanks,
Rob

2

There’s always the option for the judge to issue a judgment notwithstanding verdict.

3

Judgments are often reduced on appeal - a quick Google search will bring up a variety of them in all sorts of cases.

http://civilprocedure.dbllaw.com/2012/01/appealing-an-excessive-punitive-damages-award/

4

Can such a ruling be granted on appeal?

Thanks,
Rob

5

Not really. It can be overturned on appeal.

6

The classic case in my mind was the Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants trial, dubbed the Mcdonald’s coffee case where the jury found against McDonald’s for $2.7 million dollars but the judge reduced it to $640,000. The irony was that the lady orginally offered to settle for $20,000.

7

Also see Additur and Remittitur. Edit: I can’t say for sure, but I think the McDonalds case that samclem mentioned above is an example of what remittitur looks like: the judge unilaterally lowering the amount of the jury award, and the plaintiff either accepting it, or going through a new trial.

8

West Virginia law on the subject:

In West Virginia, an appellate court will not set aside a jury verdict upon the claims that it is excessive, “unless the verdict is monstrous and enormous, at first blush beyond all measure, unreasonable and outrageous, and such as manifestly shows jury passion, partiality, prejudice, or corruption.” Syl. Pt., Addair v. Majestic Petroleum Co., Inc., 160 W.Va. 105, 232 S.E.2d 821 (1977).

9

“*t is the province of the jury to resolve conflicting inferences from circumstantial evidence. Permissible inferences must still be within the range of reasonable probability, however, and it is the duty of the court to withdraw the case from the jury when the necessary inference is so tenuous that it rests merely upon speculation and conjecture.” Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 459 S.E. 2d 329 (W.Va. 1995) (internal citations omitted)

That is the answer to your question that I misunderstood…at least in West Virginia.

10

So does that mean - the judge cancels the trial or some aspect of it (analogous to a criminal trial ruling of “insufficient evidence”?)

I assume that means the corollary is that the appeal court can find “the judge should have withdrawn the case” - can they then cancel the case / judgement, or require a new trial, or the roundabout route where they order a new trial with instructions to the judge to withdraw the case?

11

I found this case - an argument about squatter’s rights, where the jury sided with the title holder.

12

That’s it. That’s generally the standard across the country: the “no reasonable juror” standard. It cannot simply be that the judge disagrees with the jury’s decision or feels that they gave too much weight to a piece of evidence.

The court (trial or appellate) must find that the evidence was so one-sided that no reasonable juror could have possibly looked at the evidence and found the way they did. This can also be done before it even reaches the jury on a Motion for Summary Judgment.