Post-Trial Relief and Appeals
By Aaron Larson
March, 2005
Contents
It seems axiomatic that where two parties take a case all the way through trial, obtaining a verdict from a judge or jury, they probably don't agree on the facts and legal issues which were the subject of their litigation. Even if they do agree on everything except the amount of damages to be awarded, their disagreement as to the amount of damages must be such that they found it worth the cost and effort of trial to try to achieve an outcome more favorable than the other side believed to be just and fair. It thus follows that after most trials, one or both of the parties to the lawsuit will be unhappy with the outcome.
There are steps a party can take if unhappy with the resolution of a personal injury case. Common actions include:
Petition for a New Trial
A petition for a new trial asks that the trial court set aside the verdict issued in the case, and order that an entirely new trial be conducted. These petitions are rarely granted, and the denial of a petition for a new trial is usually upheld on appeal. Where granted, the new trial will typically be justified on the basis of the misconduct of the other party or the opposing counsel, or based upon compelling evidence of juror bias.
Additur
Additur is typically a remedy requested by the plaintiff, in which the plaintiff alleges that the award of damages received was inadequate, and that the award should be increased by the judge.
Remittitur
Remittitur is typically a remedy requested by the defendant, in which the defendant alleges that the award of damages to the plaintiff was excessive, and that the award should be reduced by the judge.
Appeal
An appeal is a petition for review to a higher court, to have that court examine the lower court proceedings for error which affected the outcome of the case. Even if error has occurred, an appellate court will ordinarily uphold the verdict if it finds that the error did not affect the outcome ("harmless error"). An appeal is not a retrial of the case and, after the final resolution of a case before the trial court, it is at best difficult to introduce new evidence into the record to be reviewed on appeal.
An appeal may be analogized to allowing the coaches from a football game specify various points in the game where the referee either failed to act on the other team's misconduct, or made a bad ruling. Under this analogy, the appellate court would first determine if the error was properly preserved for appellate review (for example, declining to review any alleged error where the coaches did not object to the referee at the time the error was made), and granting relief only if it believes that the net effect of errors it deems proved would have changed the outcome of the game.
Sometimes a judge will use its power to order a new trial, or to grant additur or remittitur, in order to press the parties into a post-verdict settlement of their case. For example, faced with a large verdict that the trial court believes is excessive, the trial court might indicate to the plaintiff that it is inclined to grant remittitur in a particular amount, or to order a new trial if that amount is not acceptable to the plaintiff. A trial court might also use the threat of a potential order for a new trial to encourage a party to enter into a final settlement of the case on terms less favorable than the jury verdict.