Belanger v. Teague
Daniel Belanger by his Father and Next Friend, Albert E. Belanger v. Gloria J. Teague
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Memorandum Opinion
This appeal challenges an order of the Superior Court (Gray, J.) granting a motion for additur without extending the option of a new trial to the defendant.
Additur is customarily sought as alternative relief on a motion for a new trial on the ground of inadequate damages. Additur is “an order denying the plaintiffs application for a new trial on the condition that the defendant consent to an increase in the jury’s award as specified by the trial judge. The option of accepting an additur rests with [the] defendant . . . .” Bitting v. Willett, 47 N.J. 6, 9 , 218 A.2d 859, 861 (1966). Accord Hoague v. Cota, 140 Vt. 588, 591-92 , 442 A.2d 1282, 1283 (1982); Jehl v. Southern Pac. Co., 66 Cal. 2d 821 , 827 n.1, 59 Cal. Rptr. 276 , 279 n.1, 427 P.2d 988 , 991 n.1 (1967); see Reid v. Spadone Mach. Co., 119 N.H. 457, 466 , 404 A.2d 1094, 1100 (1979); cf. Wadsworth v. Russell, 108 N.H. 1 , 226 A.2d 492 (1967) (new trial not required where plaintiff agreed to a remittitur of excess judgment). Hence, a jury verdict supplemented with an additur may go to judgment only if the defendant waives a new trial.
Since defendant objects, there must be a new trial. Because comparative negligence was an issue and the jury apparently made no special findings, the case must be retried on liability as well as damages. Moreover, there is sufficient appearance of a compromise verdict to warrant a new trial on all issues.
So ordered.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(additur may be sought “as alternative relief on a motion for a new trial on the ground of inadequate damages”)
-
(additur is not a feasible remedy unless damages are inadequate)
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.