libterm.com Remittitur is a legal procedure that allows a court to reduce the amount of damages awarded by a jury if the judge finds the original award excessive or unsupported by evidence. This mechanism protects against unjustly high financial penalties while preserving the plaintiff's right to compensation. Explore the article to understand how remittitur might impact your case and the steps involved.
Table of Comparison
| Aspect | Remittitur | Additur |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Judicial reduction of a jury's excessive monetary award. | Judicial increase of a jury's insufficient monetary award. |
| Purpose | Prevent excessive damages beyond reasonable compensation. | Ensure fair and adequate compensation for the plaintiff. |
| Application | Used in civil cases where damages appear too high. | Used in civil cases where damages appear too low. |
| Legal Acceptance | Widely accepted in federal and state courts. | Controversial; less common and sometimes prohibited in federal courts. |
| Procedure | Court proposes a reduced amount; plaintiff consents to avoid a new trial. | Court proposes an increased amount; often requires plaintiff's consent or a new trial. |
| Beneficiary | Defendant benefits by reduced payout. | Plaintiff benefits by increased compensation. |
| Constitutional Considerations | Generally permitted; avoids Seventh Amendment issues. | Often raises Seventh Amendment concerns about jury's role. |
Introduction to Remittitur and Additur
Remittitur and additur are post-trial judicial procedures used to adjust jury verdicts in civil cases. Remittitur reduces an excessive jury award when the amount is deemed unreasonable, protecting against unjust enrichment while preserving the plaintiff's right to compensation. Additur increases a jury award when the initial amount is insufficient, although it is less commonly accepted in federal courts and varies by jurisdiction.
Definitions and Key Concepts
Remittitur is a legal procedure where a judge reduces the amount of damages awarded by a jury when it is deemed excessive or unsupported by the evidence. Additur, conversely, allows a judge to increase the jury's damage award when it is considered insufficient, though it is less commonly permitted and typically disallowed in federal courts. Both remittitur and additur serve as judicial safeguards to ensure that damage awards reflect fair compensation based on the evidence presented.
Historical Background
Remittitur originated in English common law as a judicial procedure allowing courts to reduce excessive jury awards, rooted in 18th-century cases emphasizing fairness in damage assessments. Additur, conversely, developed under U.S. federal courts influenced by equitable principles permitting courts to increase jury awards to avoid retrials, though it remains prohibited in federal court and allowed primarily in some state courts. Both doctrines reflect evolving judicial efforts to balance jury discretion with legal standards for damages since their respective historical inception periods.
Legal Basis and Statutory Framework
Remittitur and additur are judicial mechanisms for adjusting jury awards to ensure fairness under legal standards governed by statutory frameworks and case law precedents. Remittitur permits a trial judge to reduce a jury's excessive damages verdict when it exceeds reasonable compensation, grounded in principles derived from common law and procedural statutes such as Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Additur, though less common and prohibited in federal courts, allows for increasing jury awards within certain state jurisdictions under state statutes or judicial doctrines aimed at preventing inadequate damages, balancing the right to a jury trial with judicial oversight.
Application in Civil Litigation
Remittitur reduces excessive jury awards in civil litigation by allowing a judge to lower damages without ordering a new trial, promoting judicial economy and fair compensation. Additur permits a judge to increase jury awards when damages are deemed inadequate, though it is less commonly applied and subject to constitutional scrutiny in federal courts. Both tools serve as alternatives to costly retrials, ensuring equitable damage assessments in personal injury, contract disputes, and tort claims.
Differences Between Remittitur and Additur
Remittitur is a legal procedure where a plaintiff agrees to reduce the jury's award to avoid a new trial, while additur occurs when a judge increases the damages awarded by the jury. Remittitur is widely accepted in both federal and state courts as a tool to prevent excessive damage awards, but additur is often prohibited in federal courts due to constitutional concerns under the Seventh Amendment. The fundamental difference lies in who initiates the change: remittitur involves a plaintiff's concession, whereas additur is a judicial increase without plaintiff consent.
Jurisdictional Variations and Court Practices
Remittitur and additur are judicial mechanisms used to adjust jury awards, with remittitur reducing excessive damages and additur increasing inadequate awards, but their acceptance varies by jurisdiction. Federal courts generally permit remittitur but prohibit additur under the Seventh Amendment, while several state courts allow both, reflecting diverse court practices and statutory frameworks. Understanding these jurisdictional variations is crucial for litigators aiming to effectively navigate post-verdict motions and optimize damage outcomes.
Landmark Cases and Precedents
Remittitur, a judicial tool to reduce excessive jury awards, traces its roots to Blunt v. Little (1892), establishing courts' authority to lower damages to an amount supported by evidence; Dimick v. Schiedt (1935) further reinforced its constitutional boundaries in federal cases. Additur, the practice of increasing jury awards, was deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dimick v. Schiedt, but remains permissible in some state jurisdictions like California, upheld in Hydrotech Systems, Ltd. v. Oasis Waterpark (1991). Landmark precedents delineate remittitur's acceptance nationwide and restrict additur to avoid violating the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial.
Implications for Plaintiffs and Defendants
Remittitur and additur directly impact the monetary recovery and liability exposure in civil litigation, with remittitur allowing defendants to suggest a reduction in excessive jury awards, while additur permits plaintiffs to seek an increase in damages awarded. Plaintiffs benefit from additur by potentially enhancing compensation without a new trial, whereas defendants use remittitur to mitigate financial risk and avoid retrial costs. Both doctrines influence settlement negotiations and trial strategies by altering the dynamics of expected verdict amounts and judicial oversight on jury awards.
Practical Considerations and Legal Strategy
Remittitur and additur serve as judicial tools to adjust jury awards, where remittitur reduces excessive damages and additur increases insufficient awards, impacting settlement negotiations and trial outcomes. Practical considerations include analyzing appellate standards and state-specific acceptance since additur is prohibited federally but allowed in some state courts, influencing strategic decisions on appeal versus retrial. Legal strategy involves assessing the likelihood of appellate success, potential cost savings, and client objectives, ensuring the chosen approach aligns with jurisdictional precedents and maximizes favorable resolution while minimizing litigation risks.
Remittitur Infographic
