Absent evidence that a verdict is excessive, exorbitant, unreasonable or that the jury did not comprehend the law, a court can deny a motion to set aside the verdict and to order a new trial. Allegedly, the plaintiff, Jonathan Siriors, was injured in a motorcycle accident, and he sued the defendants. At trial, the jury attempted to award the plaintiff $10,000 in non-economic damages, for pain and suffering, and no damages for economic damages. Asked by the court to reconsider, the jury awarded the plaintiff $4,000 in economic damages and $6,000 in non-economic damages. The jury concluded that the plaintiff was 30 percent negligent. The plaintiff filed a motion to set aside and for a new trial and claimed that the jury ignored the law. The plaintiff maintained that there was no combination of medical expenses that totaled $4,000, because his medical expenses were $5,383 and $615. The defendants objected that the jury was not required to award all the plaintiff's medical expenses and that the law and evidence supported the verdict. A court may consider whether the verdict falls within the necessarily uncertain limits of fair and reasonable compensation, or whether it so shocks the court's conscience as to compel the conclusion that it was the result of partiality, prejudice or mistake. To grant the plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict, the court would have to conclude that the verdict was excessive or unreasonable. The jury's award of economic damages covered the majority of the plaintiff's medical expenses. The court was not persuaded that the verdict was excessive, exorbitant, unreasonable or that the jury did not comprehend the law. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial.

VIEW FULL CASE