He v. Miller, 2009 N.J. Super. LEXIS 258 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 15, 2009)

A verdict is not excessive because it is greater than what an experienced judge might expect in similar circumstances.

This action stemmed from a motor vehicle accident in which the plaintiff’s vehicle was struck head-on by the defendant's. The jury found the defendant to have been negligent and awarded plaintiff $1 million for pain and suffering, $110,000 for past lost wages, $500,000 for future lost wages, and $100,000 to the plaintiff’s husband for loss of consortium. The defendant filed a post-verdict motion seeking a new trial or, in the alternative, a remittitur. The trial judge granted the motion, in part, finding the awards excessive and shocking to the conscience. On appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the trial judge "for a complete and searching analysis" under Johnson v. Scaccetti, including an assessment of comparable jury verdicts. The trial judge thereafter considered verdicts from other trials and, referring to his "feel of the case," he adhered to his earlier ruling that the awards were excessive. On appeal, The Appellate Court held that the verdict was not excessive and shocking because it was greater than what an experienced judge might expect in similar circumstances. A judge's "feel of the case" is not an appropriate measure of excessiveness and insufficient to establish that the verdict constituted the manifest denial of justice required to set aside a jury's finding. The judge incorrectly relied on his observations of the plaintiff during the course of the four-day trial. A trial judge's "feel of the case" may not replace a jury's finding when the evidence indicates the jury possessed a different view of the facts. The trial judge's analysis of the verdicts in other cases was inadequate and inconsistent with New Jersey law. The award of $1 million for pain and suffering stemming from a permanent injury endured by a 46-year-old plaintiff, who sustained four herniated discs due to the defendant's negligence, did not constitute a manifest miscarriage of justice.

Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2010