libterm.com A new trial can significantly impact the outcome of a legal case by introducing fresh evidence or reevaluating previous testimony. Understanding the legal criteria and processes involved can help you navigate the complexities effectively. Explore the article to learn how a new trial might influence your situation and what steps to take next.
Table of Comparison
| Aspect | New Trial | Additur |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | A complete rehearing of the case in court. | Judge's adjustment of the jury's damages award. |
| Purpose | To correct errors affecting trial fairness or verdict. | To increase an inadequate damages award without new trial. |
| Initiated by | Either party via post-trial motion. | Usually by plaintiff's motion or court's discretion. |
| Scope | Reexamination of all trial issues, facts, and law. | Limited to modifying damages amount only. |
| Legal Basis | Trial court's inherent authority or procedural rules. | Judicial power recognized in some states; not allowed federally. |
| Common Jurisdiction | Universal in both state and federal courts. | Permitted primarily in state courts, not federal courts. |
| Impact on Verdict | May change findings of fact and law entirely. | Only adjusts damages; verdict on liability remains intact. |
| Right to Jury Trial | Preserved; new jury hears the case. | No jury trial; judge modifies award. |
| Legal Controversy | Standard post-trial remedy for errors or misconduct. | Controversial due to Seventh Amendment issues in federal cases. |
Understanding New Trials in Civil Litigation
A new trial in civil litigation is a procedural remedy granted when a party demonstrates that significant errors, such as incorrect jury instructions or prejudicial evidence, affected the trial's fairness or outcome. Unlike additur, which increases the damages awarded by the jury without a retrial, a new trial involves reexamining the case entirely to ensure just results. Courts grant new trials under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.
What Is Additur? A Legal Overview
Additur is a legal procedure allowing a judge to increase a jury's damage award when it is deemed unreasonably low, providing an alternative to a new trial. It serves as a judicial remedy in civil cases to avoid the costs and delays associated with retrials while ensuring fair compensation for the plaintiff. Unlike a new trial, which reopens the entire case, additur only adjusts the damages awarded, subject to the defendant's acceptance or refusal.
Key Differences Between New Trial and Additur
New trial and additur are distinct post-judgment remedies in civil litigation, with a new trial involving the entire case being reheard to correct errors or injustices, while additur allows a judge to increase the damages awarded without retrying the case. A new trial addresses substantive or procedural errors affecting the verdict, offering a comprehensive review, whereas additur specifically targets inadequate damage awards deemed legally insufficient. Courts typically grant new trials more frequently than additur, as the latter faces constitutional scrutiny, particularly regarding the Seventh Amendment in federal courts.
Historical Evolution of New Trial and Additur
The historical evolution of new trial centers on its roots in common law, where courts sought to provide parties a procedural mechanism to correct errors or injustices in jury verdicts without resorting to a complete appeal. Additur, originating in the early 20th century United States, emerged as a judicial tool allowing trial judges to increase the amount of damages awarded by a jury, contrasting with the traditional practice of remittitur, which reduces excessive awards. While new trial procedures developed across common law jurisdictions to ensure fairness and accuracy in trial outcomes, additur primarily remains a nuanced, jurisdiction-specific remedy reflecting evolving judicial attitudes toward equitable damage assessments.
Legal Standards for Granting a New Trial
Legal standards for granting a new trial typically require the party seeking relief to prove that errors occurred during the original trial that substantially affected the verdict or prejudiced the party's rights. Courts grant new trials if the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, if there was misconduct by the jury or parties, or if procedural errors compromised a fair trial. Unlike additur, which involves increasing damages as a matter of law without a new trial, a new trial addresses broader issues related to trial fairness and correctness of the original judgment.
Court Procedures Involving Additur
Court procedures involving additur permit judges to increase the amount of damages awarded by a jury without ordering a new trial, contrasting with a new trial where the entire case is reheard. Additur is primarily used in civil cases to correct inadequate jury awards and is often subject to strict judicial scrutiny to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial. While additur is permitted in some jurisdictions, others, including federal courts, prohibit it under the Seventh Amendment preserving the jury's role in determining damages.
Jurisdictional Acceptance of Additur
Jurisdictional acceptance of additur varies significantly, with most U.S. federal courts rejecting it due to the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial, whereas many state courts permit additur as a mechanism to avoid costly and time-consuming new trials. States like California and New York allow additur under specific circumstances, emphasizing judicial efficiency and fairness by enabling judges to increase jury awards without remanding for a new trial. In contrast, federal courts prefer granting a new trial to uphold constitutional protections, highlighting the persistent jurisdictional divide in using additur.
Implications for Plaintiffs and Defendants
New trial and additur present distinct implications for plaintiffs and defendants in civil litigation contexts. A new trial allows both parties to fully re-litigate the case, potentially increasing legal costs and prolonging resolution, which can be disadvantageous for plaintiffs seeking timely relief and defendants aiming to limit liability. Additur permits the judge to increase the damages awarded without granting a new trial, favoring plaintiffs by enhancing monetary recovery but raising due process concerns that defendants might challenge on appeal.
Notable Case Law Shaping New Trial and Additur
Landmark case Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U.S. 474 (1935), firmly established that additur violates the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial. Subsequently, in Beacon Theaters, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the distinct roles of judge and jury, emphasizing the limited scope of new trials versus additur. Cases like Gasoline Products Co. v. Champlin Refining Co., 283 U.S. 494 (1931), further delineate the procedural boundaries and standards for granting new trials under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59.
Strategic Considerations for Attorneys
Attorneys must weigh the strategic implications when choosing between a new trial and additur, balancing the likelihood of a more favorable verdict against the risk of appellate court rejection. Opting for a new trial allows for a complete retrial of facts, which can be advantageous in cases with procedural errors or juror misconduct, while additur may expedite resolution by suggesting a judge-approved increase in damages without a retrial. Careful analysis of jurisdictional approval rates, case complexity, and client recovery goals is essential for optimizing trial strategy and mitigating post-trial risks.
New Trial Infographic
