Hardy v. Lundblad

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: August 4, 1994
• Docket: CV-92-311-B
• Status: Published

Opinion

Hardy v . Lundblad CV-92-311-B 08/04/94

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joan Hardy and Brian Hardy

v. Civil N o . 92-311-B

Peter Lundblad

O R D E R

Plaintiffs move for an order of additur and/or new trial on

the ground that the damages the jury awarded were grossly

inadequate.

Insofar as plaintiffs request an order of additur, I deny

the request because the Seventh Amendment bars this form of relief in the present case. Dimick v . Schiedt, 293 U.S. 4 7 4 ,

486-87 (1935); see generally, 6A Moore's Federal Practice

¶59.08[8].

Plaintiffs' request for a new trial is governed by Fed. R.

Civ. P. 5 9 . Accordingly, I will grant the request only if I am

convinced that the jury's verdict is "against the clear weight of

the evidence or is based upon evidence which is false or will

result in a clear miscarriage of justice." Freeman v . Package

Mach. Co., 865 F.2d 1331, 1333 (1st Cir. 1988) quoting Coffran v . Hitchcock Clinic, Inc., 683 F.2d 5 , 6 (1st C i r . ) , cert. denied,

459 U.S. 1087 (1982). As the court further observed in Freeman,

"[i]f the weight of the evidence is not grotesquely lopsided, it

is irrelevant that the judge, were he sitting jury-waived, would

likely have found the other way." Id. at 1334.

Applying the above-described standard, I deny plaintiffs'

request because ample evidence was produced at trial to support

the jury's verdict, and no miscarriage of justice will result if

I allow the verdict to stand. To a great extent, plaintiffs'

case was based upon Mrs. Hardy's subjective assessment of the

effect her injuries had on her ability to work, to perform

routine household tasks, and to provide consortium to her

husband. While the jury could reasonably have accepted her

testimony and the objective medical evidence she offered in

support of her position, it could also have reasonably concluded that she was not disabled by her injuries to the extent she

claimed. Similarly, since conflicting evidence was produced at

trial with respect to Mrs. Hardy's claim that she needed future

surgery, the jury could have reasonably either accepted or

rejected her claim. Thus, the jury's verdict was not so against

the weight of the evidence as to require a new trial. Nor do I

believe that the jury's verdict represents a miscarriage of

2 justice. Accordingly, I decline plaintiffs' request for a new

trial.

Plaintiffs' motion for additur and/or new trial (document

n o . 40) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

Paul Barbadoro United States District Judge

August 4 , 1994

cc: Paul Cox, Esq. Kevin Devine, Esq.